DownTheLine

I'm not even sure if Palin was completely vetted. It sure looks like McCain threw a Hail Mary by picking Palin. I don't think she is experienced to be VP even after republicans kept beating at the convention that she is more experienced than anyone on the ticket, I call it BS and crazy.

Now they are not letting the press interview her or question her and they keep throwing "sexism" charges whenever they want to.

Scary that the woman wasn't vetted by her future boss and we and the media are supposed to shut up and put up. Gee, sounds just like Bush and Chaney who never have to answer for anything they do including taking us to war based on lies. Do we want more of the same?

Cheney is in Georgia and surrounding countries meeting with oil execs. Rice is meeting with Kadafi. China signed a deal with the Iraqi gov't today.

This is gonna happen again folks. We're all being sold the "small government of the people" again by the Republicans.

Look forward to a war in Iran.

Marmalade

FFS - this is ridiculous

DownTheLine

Cindy and Di???? you gotta be kidding me. Cindy was having an affair with Johnny boy while he was still married.

Kali-forniarrr

Not that's its at all relevant wasn't Di being nobbed by Hewitt? Regardless of the fact. isnt it odd that without royalty, that the ordinary folk get exalted to revered to heights by the office of the president...its just a poor man's royal family without any meaningful lineage. Monkey see, monkey do

Songbird

Seriously it scares me that anyone could even try to dismiss / justify or rationalize this accusation on the grounds that it was a 'rhetorical question' and that Palin never actually did it. The mere fact that she thought about enough to ask should be condemnatory enough. Using a (granted extreme analogy) how would you respond if that accusation had been about Palin asking if it was possible to microwave babies ? Ok so she never actually did it, but what sort of person would ask such a 'rhetorical question'? Curiosity maybe? Or just perhaps she wanted to know if it could be done? Well hell! no harm in that is there ? Just because she thought about it enough to ask that's not reason enough to condemn her now is it? Let's put it this way regardless of why she asked she's still not someone you would want running a Baby Day Center that's for damn sure! In much the same way would you trust someone who even thinks about book censorship / removal holding the 2nd highest political office in the land, sworn to uphold the Constitution when they have already indicated blatant disregard for the First Amendment ?


Spot on FB! I couldn't agree more

Tracym

You're pretty easily scared then.

I didn't try to dismiss / justify or rationalize anything. I just said we have no clue what was in her mind.

The odder the inquiry, the more I would wonder about it - microwaving babies is a bit further than possibly not liking a book imo.

However, we do not have the thought police here - I am not going to get in a big uproar because of what someone might have though of.

If she actually tried to do it, that is different.

FB picked one tiny aside, rather than the basic argument - as is his habit. If you want to buy into that - go ahead, it's just silly.

Songbird

That someone would seemingly be so complacent about the possible relinquishment of the rights afforded by First Amendment DOES scare me and rightly so. You would have to be either a fool or totally devoid of any political consciousness whatsoever for it not to.

Actually you did;
"She asked a rhetorical question, never tried to actually do it as far as I've seen"

Let's take a shot in the dark eh? How about she asked to find out if it could be done ? This was NOT a casual inquiry from a 9th grader completing an end of term paper, this was the Mayor approaching an city employee asking was it possible for certain literature (no doubt that she personally and politically found distasteful) to be removed from the public domain in that area. Now for me, it doesn't really matter a fiddlers pluck that this wasn't actually done ( i.e the librarian refused that 'request' ) the fact remains Palin sought to abuse her position of office and trample her size 8's over the rights of the First Amendment.

Nothing odd about it as far as I can see. It is what it is. Happen your 'wonderings' might in time lead you to the only possible real conclusion - Palin personally and politically objected to some of the literature and would have liked it removed if possible.


Granted the analogy was extreme (as stated) but sometimes that is required to cut through all the b/s. Bottom line you don't elect someone to the 2nd highest political office in the land, with a sworn duty to uphold and protect the Constitution if that person has given prior indication that when / if a part Constitution conflicts with their own beliefs they would basically try and piss all over it. I find it ironic that I as a non-USC am even having to argue that point to a USC.

Maybe you should share that 'thought' with Palin? Because thats exactly what censoring / removing literature is all about. It's the curtailing of the right enshrined in the First Amendment, upon which imo ( and indeed the founding fathers of this country) rests the cornerstone of this democracy. Let me refresh your memory :
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech
Now please point out to me what part of that is qualified by 'so long as those stated freedoms encompasses ideas or beliefs that people elected to public office adhere to' ?

And the difference between thought and intent is ? Palin thought about doing it, she then translated that thought in action by asking if it were possible to do. The fact that it wasn't done is irrelevant. In much the same way (another analogy for you) that your husband might THINK about screwing his secretary, he then asks her if its possible, she replies no. So knowing that a ) he thought about it b ) he translated that thought into action and asked c ) he was refused, tell me do you seek a divorce or not? Was your husband unfaithful or not merely by virtue of the fact that he never actually screwed her ? You know damn right he was, why? Because he would of if she agreed.


Nothing silly at all - the points he made are perfectly correct. Perhaps the only real 'silliness' of which he ( and others like myself responding to your posts) could be accused of is thinking that rational political argument has any resonance in your 'world'

Tracym

LOL

OK whatever. I got too bored partway through.

Songbird

And therein probably lies your problem - you don't pay enough attention, it's all in the details

elfman

or both

elfman

complacency is your middle name

Songbird

Good catch - yes BOTH

cindyabs

http://www.peteyandpetunia.com/VoteHere/VoteHere.htm

Kaffy Mintcake

Cindy - I just love you to pieces. That was hilarious and exactly what we needed.

Steerpike

Palin's future son-in-law:

On his MySpace profile, before it was made private, he boasts: "I'm a ****ing redneck who likes to snowboard and ride dirt bikes.

But I live to play hockey. I like to go camping and hang out with the boys, do some fishing, shoot some **** and just ****ing chillin' I guess.""

Fun article

Shotgun wedding, with real shotguns maybe!