Is Palin's recent baby hers or her daughter's? - Page 4

That's it. I'm suing of Trig ever runs for president!


Well I don't go to any small town bars for comparison, but I'm pretty sure if I did the talk would be about having to possibly add a "G" in front of the MILF and then some talk about whether they would still "hit it."

Just so we are clear my answer on that is uh..uh..uh.. (best Barack uh impersonation )... yes. Now reset the dart board.

However it wasn't brought up in that context. It was brought up in the context of a left-wing blog pursuing the point for political purposes.

In that regard, I'm going to keep it up here forever. It is the exact type of sexism that shouldn't happen. It is the same sort of crap as the "year in pantsuits" while no one cares or examines what type of suits Obama has worn in the last year.

Sounds just like Utah.

I was only referring to the source cited in the original post. I'm not going to presume someone is going to read something not linked here and refer to it in characterizing anything here.

The NY Times raises the sexism bar.

We get treated to a plethora of Obama supporters declaring that women can't make history because they have to stay glued to the breast pump. No wonder the Hillary voters were going nuts.

You don't sticky strawman arguments except as examples of what not to do.


Bunch of men and women. Besides, it was obviously hers once some decent pictures were found. However, it was very odd that she elected to give a speech and then fly 8 hours home after she had gone into labor. That speaks of poor judgement.

Oh, glass ceiling broken by Ferraro in 1984.


Strawman. The only comments I've seen were that a down syndrome child was a lot of work. She can hire a nanny or Dad can handle it.

Whether a nanny or stay at home dad reflects CONSERVATIVE family values is debatable. But no liberal has a problem with it.


Strawman. No one has stated this.


Strawman. The argument is that she follows a failed policy despite having objective and very personal evidence it doesn't work. This is a poor decision making.


Bumping with strawmen arguments is silly and reflects poorly on the bumper.

So we are in agreement, bringing up the personal life of Palin instead of discussing policies and positions is sexism at work instead of true discussion. Thus everyone who participated and added to such a discussion is sexist.


Odd by what reasoning? I think that being in her fifth labor she certain knew her own body and how it would respond. The fact that you claim to know her own body better than her is nothing more than pure sexism. The fact that you claim to judge what is better for her body than her is again, sexism.

The glass ceiling I was referring to was being governor of Alaska.


Then I guess you missed the page one NY Times article I cited noting a lot of liberal Obama supporters having problems with and questioning it.


No one has questioned her experience? I would beg to differ and so would a couple hundred news articles.


So you can cite proof that affirms that both teens involved were never taught about birth control, never had access to birth control?

I would like to see that proof. It takes two to tango as the saying goes. That certainly is a mitigating factor.

Nick, I agree with you that the concerns expressed in that New York Times article are plainly sexist. Some are holding her to a double standard. No one would ask those questions of a male candidate with young or adolescent children. It shouldn't be an issue that applies only to women. Rather, the question of balancing work and family should apply to women and men.

Go Shawn!

Fellows

Agreed.

Strawman. We are not in agreement because I said nothing of the sort.


Odd by every comment made to us by an OB on what not to do when pregnant. What to do when in labor, etc. Are you saying that a male OB cannot "know" the body of a patient better than they do?

It is not sexism.


There have been other female governors. It's not much of an unbroken glass ceiling anymore for anything other than the executive office.


Probably because you posted that citation AFTER the post I responded to. Lets take a look:

#1 Karen Rooff, Independent: I dont care whether shes the mother or the father; its a lot to handle,

#2 Lori Viars, evangelical Christian: "The whole family is pro-life, and they put that into practice even when its not easy,"

Oddly, doesn't answer the question.

#3 Christin Henre de Tessan, Obama supporter: "You can juggle a BlackBerry and a breast pump in a lot of jobs, but not in the vice presidency"

I dunno, I've never been VP.

#4 Anne Faircloth, Republican, Being a governor is one thing, Ms. Faircloth said, and Ms. Palins husband, Todd, seems like a supportive spouse. But running for the second-highest office in the land is a very different kettle of fish,

#5 Sarah Robertson, evangelical Christian, A mother of a 4-month-old infant with Down syndrome taking up full-time campaigning? Not my value set.

#6 One detail of Ms. Palins biography jumped out to many mothers, becoming a subject of instant fixation. She went back to work as governor of Alaska three days after giving birth, a poster named cafemama marveled on another blog, urbanmamas.com.

#7 Phyllis Schlafly, "People who dont have children or who have only one or two are kind of overwhelmed at the notion of five children, Ms. Schlafly continued, mentioning that she had raised six children and run for Congress as well. I think a hard-working, well-organized C.E.O. type can handle it very well"

So...mostly split opinions with only women commenting. Hardly a bunch of Obama supporters having problems with it.

Going back to work 3 days later is being...pretty driven. Hell, I took more than 3 days off after my last kid was born.


Strawman. You specifically stated "mommy track" No one has questioned her experience because she's on the "mommy track" because she obviously isn't on the mommy track when she runs off back to work 3 days after giving birth.

People question her experience because she's been mayor of a small town and only recently governor of Alaska. Not because she has 5 kids.


We have proof that even in a family that supports abstinence that teen sex still occurs. We're talking about a highly educated, very conservative and religious household. Now extrapolate to a single parent working multiple jobs to make ends meet.

The only potential mitigating factor is that the Palins may have been so career oriented that the children did not get a lot of guidance.

As for the dad...yes, it takes two to tango. It only takes one to say "no condom, no sex". His parents failed as well.

Except it doesn't. It is unfair that women have a double burden but it's not sexist to acknowedge that burden exists.

Career women know damn well that it's hard to juggle both career and kids. Career women also know that their husbands do a lot more than their own dads did (just ask their moms) but they STILL shoulder the vast majority of the workload.

How is it sexist for working women to think it's hard given that THEY have personal experience to know that...gee...it IS hard?

Whether Palin is up to the task is a different issue. Thus far the answer appears to be yes.

On the other hand, while being VP provides sufficient leeway, we're also talking about being back up to a really old President.

Being President is probably an order of magnitude more difficult than being Governor of Alaska.

When I read that headline I really had wonder whether I was reading The Onion. Does the rhetoric get any more bizarre? Where is Jason Jones and the 9/11 conspiracy crew when we need them?

Right, but I think you're adding things to the article that weren't there.

Was the article about confronting gender stereotypes? No, in fact no one brought up the double standard at all. Indeed it is unfair that women have a double burden. Indeed it's not sexist to acknowledge that the double burden exists. However, it seemed more like those women were criticizing her based on her potential failure to conform to a traditional gender role than they were criticizing the unfairness of having to conform to that role in the first place. Maybe I'm adding things, too. It's kind of a vague piece.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/09/03/us...nted=1&_r=1&hp

wow.

banning books. autocratic rule. pure republican awesome.

You're sllippin', dmzski!

Jason Jones.



Alex Jones:

Crap. Maybe I was thinking of Jesus Jones.

I did think her putting Frank "the bank" Murkowski's private jet on eBay was a scream.

I loved this bit:


I'm particularly fond of how running off the corrupt old guard so you can install your corrupt new guard makes her a reformer.

So is this the new thing, to dismiss all Palin critiques as sexist?

She's a joke.
She's an embarrassment.
She's a corrupt governor from a corrupt state whose previous experience was the shit mayor of a podunk trailer park village.

She's used her daughter's teenage pregnancy as a political tool to reinforce an anti-abortion stance so that John McCain can have a motivated evangelical base.

Sarah Palin is a national embarrassment.
The woman has almost no redeeming qualities. She lacks any important experience, and while that can be forgiveable in certain circumstances, she has absolutely no national or international vision. If she had some established record of political philosophy as it pertained to the entire nation and our nation's role in the world this would be a different conversation. But to say she's a neophyte relative to the place she was thrust in by a desperate McCain campaign would be to understate just how absurd this spectacle is.

The entirety of her political career, up until a few days ago, was a lockdown focus on a state with fewer people than 10+ U.S. cities. Not only that, but she was a member of a political party whose entire idealogy was explicitly pro-Alaska-over-the-US. That might not be a problem for a state representative, but this woman is sitting in line behind a man who might die of various cancers; whose medical history is so scary that reporters are only allowed to look at it with ridiculous and draconian restrictions.

Anyone with a clear mind should be horrified by the thought of President Sarah Palin.

...during the tenure of which she fired people who disagreed with her, tried banning books in the local library that she disagreed with, campaigned on a platform limited to her ideas on abortion as a wedge issue, and was generally disliked in the community. Bravo!

I was thinking more of Jack Ryan with great legs. Sign me up for the fireworks.


groverat, you don't know what you're talking about. Look up the business surrounding the gas pipeline in Alaska, with Murkowski's baggage, and when you think you're ready to roll, get back to me. Yes, she's as wet behind the ears as she can be, but between crossing the Republican machine in that state...

a machine that is backing Ted Stephens, under indictment

...and telling BP and the other producers where to get off -- she's better than, say, a guy from Chicago, who has never crossed his party on anything -- whose foremost skill is telling narcissists what they want to hear.














Two things though: first, she's VP, which is worth "a bucket of warm piss" -- and second, how this will balance the budget, bring the national debt to under 35% of GDP, and get our current account balance under control is beyond me.

The question you want the answer to is how to balance the budget without raising taxes on the rich, isn't it?

Balancing the budget is much more likely under an Obama administration, simply because he doesn't include that last part. Meanwhile he's going to cut taxes on 95% of Americans, which will get them into Walmart, trickling up to the rich people like Sam.

I'm telling you, demand side is the answer.

It's not going to happen under either administration. Tax & Spend vs Borrow & Spend. The presidency is fine, but you can't just shrug off the parities and the Congress, etc, etc. I watched an economist for Barrack "the mulatto" <--- look! racist canard!! racist canard!! Obama, on Charlie Rose -- he had nothing to say about unfunded entitlements: the state of SS, Medicare, Medicaid, or the effect of giving out "free" healthcare heroin at America's allopath orgy...

I doubt McCain has anything to say about the real world, either.

Why even include "mulatto"? If you just want to bait people, why not just call him "colored" or "porch monkey"?

Seriously. What a stupid fucking post. It's bizarre how people still can't look past race... even when they think they're being clever. It's pointless and unacceptable.

Because I miss Artman's posts, I thought I'd post this image in his honor...



Groverat pretty much nailed it as far as I'm concerned.

So...

Tax and spend or borrow and spend...

I ask you again, which is more likely to balance the budget?

Are you really saying that McCain is going to cut spending that much, that even with a tax cut for the rich, the deficit will be reduced as much as it would under Obama who will raise tax on the rich and stimulate the economy with a tax cut for the poor and middle class?

Or do you still believe cutting taxes for the rich increases revenue?

dammit, tonton, nothing is going to change.

How to compare the likely outcome of Republican and Democratic administrations:

A -Republican: take them at their word. If tax and deep spending cuts are featured, celebrate. If not, go to

B -Democrat: assume they're lying, assert their plan is at least as bad as the less than desirable Republican plan, regardless of what they say they're going to do.

If you can't win and you can't govern, you can at least declare the world to be irredeemable, so it's not like your failing, or anything.....

So... assuming nothing changes, who are you voting for, and why, since economy seems to be one of your main issues? The person who is going to cut taxes more in your tax bracket, I assume. And I assume you're not as rich as e#s, so that person is Obama.

Which Republicans did Palin "cross"?

She ran a 527 to help Stevens, this idea that she stood up to him doesn't wash in the least.

And can you be specific about her handling of the pipeline? I sincerely doubt it.

Her being chosen for VP is an insult to the collective national intelligence. She's an abortion wedge piece and nothing more.

You may need to actually do your research on this. Just follow the business with the Gas pipeline, starting with the previous administration's gaffes. And then her running against someone with the political horsepower of Murkowski. Then read up on the troopergate business, and the call she got from -- I've slept since then -- some (R) honcho putting her on notice. Then read up on the problem that state is having with tainted Veco representatives.


And when you're done, we're still talking about "a bucket of warm piss."

Third party -- either Lib. or Green. Face it, tonton, no one is talking about the things that matter in this election.

Ain't that the truth. Both are going to continue piling up mountains of debt*, bigger government, reduced liberty, less privacy, etc.

This is a joke and would be funny if it weren't so sad and despicable.

Personally I'm trying to get motivated to even vote, but if I do it'll almost certainly be a write-in.

*For those running around claiming someone is going to cut your taxes but will continue to pile on the debt, your being delusional. You have to look at three things: 1) current taxes, 2) (total) deficit + debt, 3) monetary inflation. All three of those effectively "taxes" in one form or another.

You need to look at the total debt. This has increased, irrespective of the President, non-stop for decades now. Some years faster, some slower, but never decreasing.

They are going to close the tax break loop holes for S-Corps. Thats is coming VERY soon!

Thanks for the warning. I'll ask my accountant about that (and what to do).

Interesting how this digressed to a discussion on economy from one on teenage sex.

Well you cannot look at deficits and ignore the total debt. Which many people do and continue to do.



Quite untrue. The late 1990's with the imaginary surplus was no different. It was an accounting trick. Look at the total debt over all periods. Don't take my word for it, go to the treasury department and look at their numbers.

The point here is that politicians (regardless of party) have a variety of mechanisms of promising us all the world (with no pain or payment) and delivering but hiding the payment through creative number shifting.