AppleInsider › Forums › Other Discussion › AppleOutsider › PoliticalOutsider › Is Palin's recent baby hers or her daughter's?
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Is Palin's recent baby hers or her daughter's? - Page 5

post #161 of 183
9/3/08 at 9:19am
Quote:
Originally Posted by ShawnJ View Post

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

Since when? It was women, most of whom worked, wondering based on their own experiences if it would be too much.

Quote:
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.

Again, it was women commenting based on their own perceptions and experiences on whether it was going to be a hard to do both well. How on earth is that sexist?

It's sexist to assume the mother HAS to do most of the child care. It isn't sexist to observe that mothers DO do most of the child care in addition to managing their careers.

In any case, she has a nanny.
Reply
Reply
post #162 of 183
9/3/08 at 10:18am
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by sslarson View Post

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.

Well I don't want to derail this thread any more on this topic, so I'll make this my last post: I just don't understand you. The deficit was around 5% of GDP at the beginning of the 1990s, but by 2000 it was down to around 0%. Then in the 2000s that started rising and rising again, back to about where it was when the 1990s started. To wave your hand and just say "we're still in debt" is to ignore the very real differences between the two periods.

If someone weighs 250 but should weigh 170, and loses weight and gets down to 180, you don't say "there's no difference between 250 and 170 because you didn't make it all the way back to 170."

It just sounds to me like you're trying to diminish the real difference between the 1990s and 2000s -and my guess is that you're doing it for political reasons, because the good "weight loss" period happened when a Democrat was president and the bad "weight gain" period happened with conservatives in charge.
Reply
Reply
post #163 of 183
9/3/08 at 11:03am
Quote:
Originally Posted by BRussell View Post

The deficit...

You're focused exclusively on the (general fund) deficit but failing to take into account the total governmental debt. You're ignoring the social security trust fund and its liabilities.


Quote:
Originally Posted by BRussell View Post

If someone weighs 250 but should weigh 170, and loses weight and gets down to 180, you don't say "there's no difference between 250 and 170 because you didn't make it all the way back to 170."

To use your analogy, no weight was lost. Go look at the treasury department numbers on total debt year after year.

A better description might be something like this:

The person weighs 250, they want to get down to 170. They start to give the appearance of dieting by counting the calories consumed minus calories burned at regular meals (breakfast, lunch and dinner) but ignore or don't report calories consumed by various snacks and grazing between regular meals.


Quote:
Originally Posted by BRussell View Post

It just sounds to me like you're trying to diminish the real difference between the 1990s and 2000s

Yep.


Quote:
Originally Posted by BRussell View Post

and my guess is that you're doing it for political reasons,

You're guessing wrong.


Quote:
Originally Posted by BRussell View Post

because the good "weight loss" period happened when a Democrat was president and the bad "weight gain" period happened with conservatives in charge.

I'm saying that no weight loss happened at all. If it had the debt ("weight") would have gone down. It didn't. Don't take my word for it, look at the numbers yourself.


Quote:
Originally Posted by BRussell View Post

Well I don't want to derail this thread any more on this topic, so I'll make this my last post:

I'm done with this too. You tell yourself whatever you want that makes you feel good.
Reply
Reply
post #164 of 183
9/3/08 at 2:26pm
I honestly haven't read much of anything from this thread, but I want to throw this out there:

If Bristol Palin's pregnancy should remain a "private" matter, why even issue a news release about it? I understand the blogosphere was speculating that the youngest child may be Brisol's, but here's how I'd handle everything:

1. Before the VP announcement, stick a ring on Bristol's finger and buy a ticket for her fiance' to join her.
2. When the blogosphere starts claiming that Trig is Bristol's, IF it hits the mainstream media release a short statement saying, "Any rampant speculation regarding the maternity of Trig Palin is patently ridiculous. Sarah Palin is Trig's mother and no other comments will be made on this matter.
3. When people start noticing Bristol's baby bump and asking questions, another simple statement can say, "Yes, Bristol Palin is pregnant and is engaged to the baby's father. Big deal. Mama and Papa Palin are excited at the prospect of being grandparents. Please respect the family's privacy."

Over and done.

I think the McCain campaign screwed the pooch on this one. Either they didn't know before the VP announcement or somebody didn't think all of this through well enough ahead of time.
Living life in glorious 4G HD (with a 2GB data cap).
Reply
Living life in glorious 4G HD (with a 2GB data cap).
Reply
post #165 of 183
9/3/08 at 5:55pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by sslarson View Post

You're focused exclusively on the (general fund) deficit but failing to take into account the total governmental debt. You're ignoring the social security trust fund and its liabilities.

And you're ignoring inflation and changes in the accounting procedure.
Reply
Reply
post #166 of 183
9/3/08 at 6:02pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by sslarson View Post

You're focused exclusively on the (general fund) deficit but failing to take into account the total governmental debt. You're ignoring the social security trust fund and its liabilities.

Does this mean the only way to ever fully pay off the national debt would be to abolish Social Security?
eye
bee
BEE
Reply
eye
bee
BEE
Reply
post #167 of 183
9/3/08 at 7:37pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by FormerLurker View Post

Does this mean the only way to ever fully pay off the national debt would be to abolish Social Security?

You'd have to get rid of the pay roll tax if ya did that.
Reply
Reply
post #168 of 183
9/3/08 at 7:54pm
she really sucks...
ah well.

it is almost too clear that she didn't write the speech...
"In a republic, voters may vote for the leaders they want, but they get the leaders they deserve."
Reply
"In a republic, voters may vote for the leaders they want, but they get the leaders they deserve."
Reply
post #169 of 183
9/3/08 at 8:38pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by hardeeharhar View Post

she really sucks...
ah well.

it is almost too clear that she didn't write the speech...

The speech was apparently written before she was even selected.
Gangs are not seen as legitimate, because they don't have control over public schools.
Reply
Gangs are not seen as legitimate, because they don't have control over public schools.
Reply
post #170 of 183
9/3/08 at 8:50pm
The attack points, surely...

The family bits, which were far less refined, not so much.
"In a republic, voters may vote for the leaders they want, but they get the leaders they deserve."
Reply
"In a republic, voters may vote for the leaders they want, but they get the leaders they deserve."
Reply
post #171 of 183
9/4/08 at 1:04am
re. that baby:

Who cares? And why? It's their family business, and nobody else's. Don't we Americans have lives of our own to deal with? Why do we have these obsessions with the personal affairs of others, and total strangers at that.

Sad. What is wrong with us all? Is it not a sad indictment of the national climate that such an irrelevent thread gets so much response?

I guess I am to blame as much as everyone else... since I contributed to this mess.



.
"We've never made the case, or argued the case that somehow Osama bin Laden was directly involved in 9/11. That evidence has never been forthcoming". VP Cheney, 3/29/2006. Interview by Tony Snow
Reply
"We've never made the case, or argued the case that somehow Osama bin Laden was directly involved in 9/11. That evidence has never been forthcoming". VP Cheney, 3/29/2006. Interview by Tony Snow
Reply
post #172 of 183
9/4/08 at 5:48am
Quote:
Originally Posted by hardeeharhar View Post

The attack points, surely...

The family bits, which were far less refined, not so much.

The fam part seemed thrown together in a couple of hours, or less, and was far too long. Sloppy, at best.

The talking points came out of the GOP playbook, which has been around forever.

Sadly, people fall for it.


Let's face it, there were several blatant falsehoods in the speech that nobody should have missed and, combined with the divisive nature of the whole thing, make the speech a pretty sure bet for the permanent file.

 

Your = the possessive of you, as in, "Your name is Tom, right?" or "What is your name?"

 

You're = a contraction of YOU + ARE as in, "You are right" --> "You're right."

 

 

Reply

 

Your = the possessive of you, as in, "Your name is Tom, right?" or "What is your name?"

 

You're = a contraction of YOU + ARE as in, "You are right" --> "You're right."

 

 

Reply
post #173 of 183
9/4/08 at 5:53am
Quote:
Originally Posted by sammi jo View Post

re. that baby:

Who cares? And why? It's their family business, and nobody else's. Don't we Americans have lives of our own to deal with? Why do we have these obsessions with the personal affairs of others, and total strangers at that.

Sad. What is wrong with us all? Is it not a sad indictment of the national climate that such an irrelevent thread gets so much response?

I guess I am to blame as much as everyone else... since I contributed to this mess.



.

Who took it to the front and used it? They did. I even think they may have planned it this way. They even got the father to be down from his red-neck playground to greet McCain at the airport. They played it for all they could while saying nobody could say anything. That is disgusting.

However, the baby is pretty much a non-issue (except where the entire scenario goes against everything they have been preaching, family, family values). There is plenty of material coming out about McCain's choice and decision-making that should scare the pants off of people.

 

Your = the possessive of you, as in, "Your name is Tom, right?" or "What is your name?"

 

You're = a contraction of YOU + ARE as in, "You are right" --> "You're right."

 

 

Reply

 

Your = the possessive of you, as in, "Your name is Tom, right?" or "What is your name?"

 

You're = a contraction of YOU + ARE as in, "You are right" --> "You're right."

 

 

Reply
post #174 of 183
9/4/08 at 6:54am
Politico

Quote:
Georgetown University professor Deborah Tannen, who has written best-selling books on gender differences, said she agrees with complaints that Palin skeptics — including prominent voices in the news media — have crossed a line by speculating about whether the Alaska governor is neglecting her family in pursuit of national office.

“What we’re dealing with now, there’s nothing subtle about it,” said Tannen. “We’re dealing with the assumption that child-rearing is the job of women and not men. Is it sexist? Yes.”

“There’s no way those questions would be asked of a male candidate,” said Howard Wolfson a former top strategist for Clinton’s presidential campaign.

Look, it isn't imaginary and guess what, there are a certain 18 million voters who sense the Obama media bias kicking into sexist overdrive to defend their messiah.

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply
post #175 of 183
9/6/08 at 4:35pm
Women seemed turned off by Palin:

http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20080903/pl_afp/usvotewomen

And those 18 million cracks:

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080905/...inton_to_palin

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/poli...king__to_.html

 

Your = the possessive of you, as in, "Your name is Tom, right?" or "What is your name?"

 

You're = a contraction of YOU + ARE as in, "You are right" --> "You're right."

 

 

Reply

 

Your = the possessive of you, as in, "Your name is Tom, right?" or "What is your name?"

 

You're = a contraction of YOU + ARE as in, "You are right" --> "You're right."

 

 

Reply
post #176 of 183
9/6/08 at 4:47pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by someone on Politico

complaints that Palin skeptics including prominent voices in the news media

Who are these Palin skeptics? I saw that one piece in the Times, and then another one in the AP, I believe, but they both talked about "liberals" and "skeptics, but the media reports all seem to point to people who don't seem to exist.
Gangs are not seen as legitimate, because they don't have control over public schools.
Reply
Gangs are not seen as legitimate, because they don't have control over public schools.
Reply
post #177 of 183
9/6/08 at 5:48pm
Here's an article in Time that references "public forums" as well as the author's inbox and subconscious. Here's one on ABC.com that talks about "liberals" and cites some bloggers.

Here's Newsbusters claiming the NYT is questioning Palin's parenting skills, referencing an article that apparently doesn't, with a last bit about a pod cast and a single remark.

Here's a rightwing blog that claims that Palin's parenting choices are under attack from "radical feminists", the proof of which is apparently another post on the same blog which cites passages from some blogs that talk about the hypocrisy of talking about Bristol's "choice" when Palin opposes choice and how Plain's politics are bad for women, but nothing at all about her fitness as a parent.

I'm think I'm seeing a pattern.
They spoke of the sayings and doings of their commander, the grand duke, and told stories of his kindness and irascibility.
Reply
They spoke of the sayings and doings of their commander, the grand duke, and told stories of his kindness and irascibility.
Reply
post #178 of 183
9/6/08 at 10:48pm
Indeed. Sort of like "voter fraud."
Gangs are not seen as legitimate, because they don't have control over public schools.
Reply
Gangs are not seen as legitimate, because they don't have control over public schools.
Reply
post #179 of 183
9/6/08 at 11:06pm
Yeah. Fuck, this is depressing.
They spoke of the sayings and doings of their commander, the grand duke, and told stories of his kindness and irascibility.
Reply
They spoke of the sayings and doings of their commander, the grand duke, and told stories of his kindness and irascibility.
Reply
post #180 of 183
9/6/08 at 11:22pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by addabox View Post

Yeah. Fuck, this is depressing.

Say it enough times and it'll wind up in some gullible reporter's story. And then it's true!

Iraq! WMD! Iraq! WMD! Voter Fraud! Liberals attacking Palin's motherhood!

As an aside, Adda: Go buy this right now.
Gangs are not seen as legitimate, because they don't have control over public schools.
Reply
Gangs are not seen as legitimate, because they don't have control over public schools.
Reply
post #181 of 183
9/7/08 at 11:32am
Reply
Reply
post #182 of 183
9/7/08 at 12:40pm
Awww. An average Utah family!
Gangs are not seen as legitimate, because they don't have control over public schools.
Reply
Gangs are not seen as legitimate, because they don't have control over public schools.
Reply
post #183 of 183
9/7/08 at 3:12pm
Artman, i prefer this one:


Reply
Reply
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: PoliticalOutsider
AppleInsider › Forums › Other Discussion › AppleOutsider › PoliticalOutsider › Is Palin's recent baby hers or her daughter's?