Jump to content
aj

Palin and ex-gays?

Recommended Posts

Quote Fritz:

If a person has to use factually inaccurate data to make his argument there is something wrong with that argument.

A timely reminder for us all as election fever hits. Please keep Fritz's excellent statement in mind.

We have many visitors who hold various points of view. I implore you all to please keep the discussions civil and objective.

Fritz continues to remind us of the common courtesy to be fair. Please read his post.

I would add that as an Australian I am personally tolerant of most cracks and barbs on public figures; as your administrator at AD Forums I have to pursue a more moderate line to uphold the dignity of our discussions.

Link to comment

Let me clarify my lazy and dishonest points.

First, the information I refer to came from a short interview with the librarian in question done by the national news media (yes, those left wing, liberal elites) shortly after Gov. Palin's nomination was announced. Now I will be perfectly willing to admit a fired librarian has a potential axe to grind, but if the lady says she felt she was being pressured to ban books by a public official, I'm personally going to give a librarian credence over any elected public official, democrat or republican, to whom lies and spin are second nature.

I also think it is disingenuous to raise the issue of book banning with a librarian, and to then state it is only a "hypothetical" inquiry. Such inquiries from an elected official, from either party, would raise my ire. The difference here is that, in this case, it was a republican mayor, from a conservative christian church asking the "hypothetical" questions. The position of the christian right is clearly antithetical to the free exchange of ideas and information. They, and they alone, seem to crave the position of sole guardian and arbiter of the morality of public discourse, and want the sole right to ban anything they, and they alone, deem to be offensive to the public sensibilities. My viewpoint is slightly different again. If you don't like it; don't read it, don't watch it, and don't buy it.

We are all, of course, free to accept the perspective of Factcheck.org, the Annenberg Institute, or either the democratic or republican propaganda machines. However, in my experience, there is no such thing as a non-partisan opinion. Everyone brings their own personal preferences and biases to any analysis. When reading said analyses, people filter that information through the lens of their own biases to determine its degree of accuracy. To many republicans, for example, Fox News is the only objective news network in the United States, when in reality, it is at least as slanted and biased as the rest of the news media, albeit in the other direction.

Finally, I told no-one what to think here: I said that everyone should do their own research and vote their own conscience...after all, the only thing at stake in November is the future of our nation, and our own personal futures.

In the paraphrased words of someone far more eloquent than myself:

To this end we should mutually pledge our lives, our fortunes, and our sacred honor.

Rick

Link to comment

I've decided I'm voting for the Rick/Fritz ticket. Thank you both for a lively post. Civil and thoughtfully presented.

I base all my political choices on wardrobe and hairstyles--I figure it's the only thing upon which I can base a concrete judgment. Much of what is said is twisted; Much is said vaguely; Much is concession.

No one can get elected if they are honest.

Of course MHO; H=humble not honest!

Link to comment
Finally, I told no-one what to think here: I said that everyone should do their own research and vote their own conscience...after all, the only thing at stake in November is the future of our nation, and our own personal futures.

To which I would add, as the US considers itself the policeman of the world, the future of the whole world.

Marty

Link to comment
Pecman, you misunderstand. I am not defending Palin. Rather I am saying that no matter our opinion of someone we need to be honest and stick to facts. Would you like it if someone ran around telling lies about you? Do you approve of dishonesty?

I never said you were defending Palin. I just said she was a c@nt.

Link to comment
To which I would add, as the US considers itself the policeman of the world, the future of the whole world.

When I had to work for my company's division in Italy for a few months, some of the workers there asked me, "why has America sent troops to Iraq? Why do they want to start this war?"

And I said, "actually, it's not America who's doing this. It's our bad leaders. Don't judge an entire country on the basis of one bad president. Most of the people in our country don't want to lose money and people on a misguided war like this. In fact, many of us are against the idea that 'America is the policeman of the world,' and instead, think we should clean up our own country first before we try to get involved with problems elsewhere."

So, Marty, blame Bush for this, not America as a whole. Most of us here didn't vote for him, and it's not our war. Between the war, gas prices, and the economy, Bush has done a fine job screwing a lot of things up. We're hoping the next guy in office will worry about cleaning up America's problems and not interfere with what other countries are doing, unless they specifically ask for our help.

There's always the possibility we'll declare war on another country, and if it's for a good reason, then that'd be a different matter. But this Mideastern mess is completely stupid, just as bad as Vietnam in many ways.

Link to comment

I will proudly admit that I am a conservative gay man. An extremely conservative gay man. This doesn't mean that I am not open to liberal issues such as gay marriage/rights, but that I hold more capitalistic views on the economy and have strong beliefs in the constitution and my rights as a citizen. I would gladly give up my gay rights entirely to enjoy the freedom of my other rights granted to me in the constitution and bill of rights.

People place too much significance on a politics religion. Mitt Romney (although an idiot) was condemned for being a Morman. Sarah Palin is currently being condemned repeatedly for being a very devote Christian. A true politician understands that they represent the will of the people and that they're not in office to vote on their opinions of matters. Issues like gay rights and abortion are social movements that cannot be greatly affected by any one politician. These social movements can only be changed by time and gradual acceptance by the general population.

The Democratic party and liberal media has also deployed it's usual smoke and mirrors in this latest presidential election. They have been continually been digging up material on McCain and Palin, but what is to be said of Obama. Acorn? Rezko? Won't provide birth certificate? Voted present 130 times in Illinois legislature?

I will not vote for Obama becuase he does not support my Constitutional Rights as an American and feels he knows "whats best for me". I do not like how socialist McCain is either, but I feel him as less of a threat.

YMMV, just my view on things.

Link to comment
When I had to work for my company's division in Italy for a few months, some of the workers there asked me, "why has America sent troops to Iraq? Why do they want to start this war?"

And I said, "actually, it's not America who's doing this. It's our bad leaders. Don't judge an entire country on the basis of one bad president. Most of the people in our country don't want to lose money and people on a misguided war like this. In fact, many of us are against the idea that 'America is the policeman of the world,' and instead, think we should clean up our own country first before we try to get involved with problems elsewhere."

So, Marty, blame Bush for this, not America as a whole. Most of us here didn't vote for him, and it's not our war. Between the war, gas prices, and the economy, Bush has done a fine job screwing a lot of things up. We're hoping the next guy in office will worry about cleaning up America's problems and not interfere with what other countries are doing, unless they specifically ask for our help.

There's always the possibility we'll declare war on another country, and if it's for a good reason, then that'd be a different matter. But this Mideastern mess is completely stupid, just as bad as Vietnam in many ways.

I love how that when America first entered into Iraq that President Bush has more than 80% support of the American polulation. More than 80% of Americans supported entering in the War with Iraq. Now that it has been a few years since 9/11 and since the war has started all of a sudden the majority of America is against the "pointless war" (that they once supported) and Bush. Gotta love America, I've almost but lost all faith in it's population...

Link to comment
I will not vote for Obama becuase he does not support my Constitutional Rights as an American and feels he knows "whats best for me". I do not like how socialist McCain is either, but I feel him as less of a threat.

I should stay out of political discussions, but I'm baffled by your attitude, Mr. Insomniac.

I'm confused. Can you tell me why Obama doesn't support your constitutional rights? Which ones in particular?

My opinion is, we have two mediocre candidates running. We currently have one of the most incompetent presidents in history running things, plus an unwanted, unnecessary war that's cost $700 billion. The country's $10 trillion in debt and the stock market is collapsing. Public opinion on Bush is at an all-time low. McCain is trailing Obama by 11 points in the polls right now, and is looked on as a loser by most of the major pundits -- not helped by the Washington Post, LA Times, and the Chicago Tribune just endorsing Obama this week.

I think neither candidate is ideal, but McCain is a temperamental, difficult man who's far removed from the lives of average people. Sarah Palin might be the worst candidate for vice-president in decades. Read this month's issue of Rolling Stone at this link:

http://www.rollingstone.com/news/coverstor...eal_john_mccain

and tell me what you think of John McCain after reading it.

BTW, I've been a registered Republican for more than thirty years. I think of myself as an independent, but I tend to be very liberal on social matters, but conservative on finance. I've always tried to vote for the candidates that represented my core feelings on the issues that mattered, and I didn't care about their political party. (My running joke has been, I've always voted for the most liberal Republicans I could find, just to undermine the party.)

To me, Obama is the best compromise we've got. No question, either candidate is a damn sight better than the Bush we've got.

Link to comment
I love how that when America first entered into Iraq that President Bush has more than 80% support of the American polulation. More than 80% of Americans supported entering in the War with Iraq. Now that it has been a few years since 9/11 and since the war has started all of a sudden the majority of America is against the "pointless war" (that they once supported) and Bush. Gotta love America, I've almost but lost all faith in it's population...

There's a quote by a famous American that I think wraps up the whole Iraq situation quite nicely.

You can fool some of the people all of the time, you can fool all of the people some of the time, but you can't fool all of the people all of the time.

Colin :wav:

Link to comment
I love how that when America first entered into Iraq that President Bush has more than 80% support of the American polulation. More than 80% of Americans supported entering in the War with Iraq. Now that it has been a few years since 9/11 and since the war has started all of a sudden the majority of America is against the "pointless war" (that they once supported) and Bush.

Many, many people did not support the war even when it first started. I remember in 2002 reading a lot of experts who advised, "Afghanistan is hiding Bin Laden. That's the place to invade." But Bush instead invaded Iraq for reasons that are still muddy and unclear, including "weapons of mass destruction" that had nothing to do with the World Trade Tower tragedy.

They made vague promises at the time that we'd occupy the country for a year, maybe two years tops, then set up a new government and let them run things. Instead, the war has dragged on for more than six years, at a cost of $10 billion a month -- over $700 billion total.

Show me where you get an 80% support figure for the initial war. I can show you figures from May where the public's support for Bush is under 30%, and that's as of May 2008:

http://www.pensitoreview.com/2008/05/08/po...lightly-in-gop/

As far as I know Bush has gone down from here, along with the economy. (BTW, I'm not one to blame Bush entirely for the economy. I think he's only responsible for 50% of the problem, and the rest is Congress and some bad appointees.)

Link to comment

I have a bone to pick with our British contingent. I stumbled across the following accidentally. I would have hoped such an excellent article would have been discovered by someone closer to its source and made available to us. As none of you did this, it's left to me to present it here.

I wish our journalists would write like this!

C

A view from another continent...IT TOOK A FOREIGN CORRESPONDANT TO SEE THIS DEBATE FOR WHAT IT REALLY WAS. FLIRTING HER WAY TO VICTORY, SARAH PALIN'S FARCICAL DEBATE PERFORMANCE LOWERED THE STANDARDS FOR BOTH FEMALE CANDIDATES AND USPOLITICAL DISCOURSE

Michelle Goldberg, Friday October 3 2008,guardian.co.uk

At least three times last night, Sarah Palin, the adorable, preposterous vice-presidential candidate, winked at the audience. Had a male candidate with a similar reputation for attractive vapidity made such a brazen attempt to flirt his way into the good graces of the voting public, it would have been universally noted, discussed and mocked. Palin, however, has single-handedly so lowered the standards both for female candidates and American political discourse that, with her newfound ability to speak in more-or-less full sentences, she is now deemed to have performed acceptably last night. By any normal standard, including the ones applied to male presidential candidates of either party, she did not. Early on, she made the astonishing announcement that she had no intentions of actually answering the queries put to her. "I may not answer the questions that either the moderator or you want to hear, but I'm going to talk straight to the American people and let them know my track record also," she said. And so she proceeded, with an almost surreal disregard for the subjects she was supposed to be discussing, to unleash fusillades of scripted attack lines, platitudes, lies, gibberish and grating references to her own pseudo-folksy authenticity. It was an appalling display. The only reason it was not widely described as such is that too many American pundits don't even try to judge the truth, wisdom or reasonableness of the political rhetoric they are paid to pronounce upon. Instead, they imagine themselves as interpreters of a mythical mass of 'average Americans' who they both venerate and despise. In pronouncing upon a debate, they don't try to determine whether a candidate's responses correspond to existing reality, or whether he or she is capable of talking about subjects such as the deregulation of the financial markets or the devolution

of the war in Afghanistan. The criteria are far more vaporous. In this case, it was whether Palin could avoid utterly humiliating herself for 90 minutes, and whether urbane commentators would believe that she had connected to a public that they see as ignorant and sentimental. For the Alaska governor, mission accomplished. There is indeed something mesmerizing about Palin, with her manic beaming and fulsome confidence in her own charm. The force of her personality managed to slightly obscure the insulting emptiness of her answers last night. It's worth reading the transcript of the encounter, where it becomes clearer how bizarre much of what she said was. Here, for example, is how she responded to Biden's comments about how the middle class has been short-changed during the Bush administration, and how McCain will continue Bush's policies: "Say it ain't so, Joe, there you go again pointing backwards again. You preferenced [sic] your whole comment with the Bush administration. Now doggone it, let's look ahead and tell Americans what we have to plan to do for them in the future. You mentioned education, and I'm glad you did. I know education you are passionate about with your wife being a teacher for 30 years, and God bless her. Her reward is in heaven, right? My brother, who I think is the best schoolteacher in the year, and here's a shout-out to all those third graders at Gladys Wood Elementary School, you get extra credit for watching the debate." Evidently, Palin's pre-debate handlers judged her incapable of speaking on a fairly wide range of subjects, and so instructed to her to simply disregard questions that did not invite memorized talking points or cutesy filibustering. They probably told her to play up her spunky averageness, which she did to the point of shtick and dishonesty. Asked what her Achilles heel is - a question she either didn't understand or chose to ignore - she started in on how McCain chose her because of her "connection to the heartland of America. Being a mom, one very concerned about a son in the war, about a special needs child, about kids heading off to college, how are we going to pay those tuition bills?" None of Palin's children, it should be noted, is heading off to college. Her son is on the way to Iraq, and her pregnant 17-year-old daughter is engaged to be married to a high-school dropout and self-described 'fuckin' redneck'. Palin is a woman who can't even tell the truth about the most quotidian and public details of her own life, never mind about matters of major public import. In her only vice-presidential debate, she was shallow, mendacious and phoney. What kind of maverick, after all, keeps harping on what a maverick she is? That her performance was considered anything but a farce doesn't show how high Palin has risen,but how low we all have sunk.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/ci...gt;te.feminism)

Link to comment
I have a bone to pick with our British contingent.

I apologise, Cole. I would have posted the Guardian article, I really would. But you see I can't read. My Feudal overlord doesn't consider that reading is a necessary skill for a swineherd so I never got to learn.

For anyone who's interested, the Guardian is a well-respected national paper here in the UK which still attempts to tackle issues of serious concern in the face of the overwhelming tide of the hounding of celebrities which passes for news in the lesser papers. It is occasionally mocked for its perceived poor proof-reading. It used to be affectionately known as 'The Grauniad'.

Link to comment
I apologise, Cole. I would have posted the Guardian article, I really would. But you see I can't read. My Feudal overlord doesn't consider that reading is a necessary skill for a swineherd so I never got to learn.

...

You think that is bad? Here in the OZ colonies, we are still trying to work out how to speak, let alone, read and write.

Ug Ug Oog Ug-ug! uh g'day.

:wav:

Link to comment

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...


×
×
  • Create New...