Palin's teen daughter is preggo...

[BDR]

In today's world, who says that she's ignoring her children to be out campaigning?

That's the dumbest question asked here in quite some time. Unless Palin has a clone, none of her kids are going to be seeing too much of her. It a law of physics, you know, being in two places at once.

And she's not throwing her teenage daughter out there in anyway....its the bloggers and news media that are doing this.

Yes, she is. By accepting this nomination, she has thrust her entire family into the spotlight. The bloggers and the news media are just doing what they're paid to do. It's a parent's responsibility to protect their children and, knowing the scrutiny this young girl would face if the national spotlight was shone in her direction, Palin should've made the right call as a parent and protect her child.

Making history apparently is more important to some people.

r:>)

[Hawk]

In today's world, who says that she's ignoring her children to be out campaigning? Who says that her 17 year old daughter isn't well rounded and happy even with a major life change coming at her? That's our point...we don't see her doing that. And she's not throwing her teenage daughter out there in anyway....its the bloggers and news media that are doing this...most respectable ones are not.

Yes, if I was in the same position as Gov. Palin, I would be making the same decisions she has made to accept the challenge. She's not alone. She's got a great family support system with her husband, her parents, and other close family and friends who will be there to help her with her private life so she can help run our government.

I felt the same way when another politician was criticized because he didn't bow out of running when his wife was diagnosed with her cancer returning and the fact that its terminal.

I just can't agree with you on the fact that she shouldn't run for VP.

In life, you can be thrown a curve ball at any time. These curve balls can come from many pitchers and at different speeds. Do you just run from them and let them all go by you? No, you step up and hit that ball.

Bristol is not the only 17 year old that has a child. That doesn't make her life bad. There will be struggles sure. But look at the support system she has...that girl will make a great mother and will be able to do a lot in this world including getting a higher education, building her own career and be a great mom. I've known mother's who had their first child at 16 and they handled it all...some without much of a support system at all...and they didn't even rely on welfare for any more than they really needed.

I just can't buy your logic as to why this is not the time for Gov. Palin to be able to serve as VP. I can't buy that it will make her a lesser mother than any other mother in the world that has a career. Queen Elizabeth had children and she rules to this day.

I still don't get why you like her, as you did not respond to my previous post pointing out her hypocrisy ?

Queen Elizabeth does not rule anything.

[Hawk]

McCain voted with Bush 90% of the time. Bush is the biggest spender in history. Making us the biggest debtor nation in the history of the world.

As you know, I'm not happy with the spending spree during this administration under either party's Congress--the Congress we have right now is possibly the absolute worst in history--however;

Bush doesn't vote on any of this stuff so how can McCain vote with him on anything? Bush doesn't introduce much legislation into Congress, so what are you (and every DNC pundit on cable news) referring to?

Aside from that, you did an excellent job on that post! Can you please give me the DNC web page from where you cut and pasted it?

Who are you ? O'Riely ? Spinner extraordinaire .

Check the facts for your self. I've said it a million (now 1,000,001) times that under the administrations of Reagan, Bush 1 and Bush 2 a greater deficit has been created than any other time in US history.

Now look up how much the Clinton Administration added to the deficit.

W in fact has added more EVEN IF you EXCLUDE the costs of the war.

Now don't try and tell me that the Republican congress (the lockstep party) didn't push everything Bush wanted.

How many vetoes did Bush W use before the last congressional election. How many has he used since the last election.

If Bush wants it. It is known to the lockstep party how they will vote. McCain is considered a maverick because he disagreed (with Bush) a whopping 10% if the time.

That means 90% of the time, he agreed with Bush. Gave him what he wanted. That's how he voted with Bush - as though you didn't already know what I meant.

There is even a statement from McCain bragging that he voted 90% of the time with Bush. If McCain said it - it must be true. No DNC there.

[Hawk]

As far as Palin being a hunter / outdoors woman and thinking she cares about nature, think again.

She wants Polar Bears removed from the endangered species list. Even though their habitat is shrinking from global warming at an alarming rate.

Why does she want them removed - To drill for oil.

She has also made a stance (remember her husband works for British Petroleum) that global warming is not happening and has nothing to to with pollution of our atmosphere. She is in denial that man has anything to do with global warming - even though it has been proven otherwise.

[lonewolf]

That means 90% of the time, he agreed with Bush. Gave him what he wanted. That's how he voted with Bush - as though you didn't already know what I meant.

No...I really don't know what you or McCain are talking about.

90% is an exact number. To get a number like that, you need to divide two numbers made up of empirical data. Since Bush has no voting record, I'd like to see how they came up with an empirical denominator.

BTW, Clinton was too busy testifying to balance the budget. If any one person could be credited with the balanced budget during the late 90s, it would be Newt Gingrich...why do you think the present big-spending repub leadership threw him out?

[songsmith]

Thanks for answering my question, Lisa. It speaks volumes.

ZappasX, you know I love ya! I'm not a he-man or a woman-hater, that's just the textbook response to women who allege misogyny at the drop of a hat.

Okay, so that's the consensus. Both, no matter what the cost. Ignore the bad stuff, and it'll go away. Well, I can see beginning of the end, anyway. Sarah Palin will be a lightning rod for the media, and it'll be her undoing (and the ticket's). She's been conspicuously absent the past few days, and if I were her, I'd be freaking the f#@k out right now over the firestorm. Every day the media finds something the Republicans missed in the vetting process. If the GOP ticket loses now, they'll blame it on her, instead of the Bushpilots running the show. Instead of having both, she'll harm both. I personally couldn't take that chance, the stakes are too high. ------>JMS

[Banned]

One interesting result of the Palin nomination is yet another odd Altoona Mirror headline:

"McCain Taps Gov. of Alaska"

Do they do that stuff on purpose?

[DirtySanchez]

One interesting result of the Palin nomination is yet another odd Altoona Mirror headline:

"McCain Taps Gov. of Alaska"

Do they do that stuff on purpose?

I saw that the other day. Good for him. She's def. a cougar.

[JackANSI]

One interesting result of the Palin nomination is yet another odd Altoona Mirror headline:

"McCain Taps Gov. of Alaska"

Do they do that stuff on purpose?

This alone was worth reading the entire thread...


I hate elections... I'm overwhelmed with the diversity of choices and how genuine they are...

[Hawk]

That means 90% of the time, he agreed with Bush. Gave him what he wanted. That's how he voted with Bush - as though you didn't already know what I meant.

No...I really don't know what you or McCain are talking about.

90% is an exact number. To get a number like that, you need to divide two numbers made up of empirical data. Since Bush has no voting record, I'd like to see how they came up with an empirical denominator.

BTW, Clinton was too busy testifying to balance the budget. If any one person could be credited with the balanced budget during the late 90s, it would be Newt Gingrich...why do you think the present big-spending repub leadership threw him out?

They threw out Gingrich for - surprise - HYPOCRISY. He was having an affair while trying to oust Clinton for lying about having an affair. When he got caught in full hypocrisy, he was gone.

[Hawk]

That means 90% of the time, he agreed with Bush. Gave him what he wanted. That's how he voted with Bush - as though you didn't already know what I meant.

No...I really don't know what you or McCain are talking about.

90% is an exact number. To get a number like that, you need to divide two numbers made up of empirical data. Since Bush has no voting record, I'd like to see how they came up with an empirical denominator.

BTW, Clinton was too busy testifying to balance the budget. If any one person could be credited with the balanced budget during the late 90s, it would be Newt Gingrich...why do you think the present big-spending repub leadership threw him out?

If Goerge Bush wants 100 things, and you agree to vote for 90 of the things he wants. It is counted as a 90% voting record with Bush. Even if Bush doesn't vote.

What about those veto stats ?

[lonewolf]

That means 90% of the time, he agreed with Bush. Gave him what he wanted. That's how he voted with Bush - as though you didn't already know what I meant.

No...I really don't know what you or McCain are talking about.

90% is an exact number. To get a number like that, you need to divide two numbers made up of empirical data. Since Bush has no voting record, I'd like to see how they came up with an empirical denominator.

BTW, Clinton was too busy testifying to balance the budget. If any one person could be credited with the balanced budget during the late 90s, it would be Newt Gingrich...why do you think the present big-spending repub leadership threw him out?

They threw out Gingrich for - surprise - HYPOCRISY. He was having an affair while trying to oust Clinton for lying about having an affair. When he got caught in full hypocrisy, he was gone.

Sorry Bill, nice try. The affair story did not come out until well after he resigned.

1st came the uproar over "The Book Deal" (is it hypocrisy that Nancy Pelosi now has a book deal?) Ultimately, it was the neo-big-spending repub leadership that demanded his head. Here is a summary by CNN:

http://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/stories/ ... /gingrich/

[Hawk]

Thanks for answering my question, Lisa. It speaks volumes.

ZappasX, you know I love ya! I'm not a he-man or a woman-hater, that's just the textbook response to women who allege misogyny at the drop of a hat.

Okay, so that's the consensus. Both, no matter what the cost. Ignore the bad stuff, and it'll go away. Well, I can see beginning of the end, anyway. Sarah Palin will be a lightning rod for the media, and it'll be her undoing (and the ticket's). She's been conspicuously absent the past few days, and if I were her, I'd be freaking the f#@k out right now over the firestorm. Every day the media finds something the Republicans missed in the vetting process. If the GOP ticket loses now, they'll blame it on her, instead of the Bushpilots running the show. Instead of having both, she'll harm both. I personally couldn't take that chance, the stakes are too high. ------>JMS

Palin is out studying her ass off. She knows nothing about foreign affairs. She's memorizing crib notes so as not to sound stupid when asked questions. That's why the media won't have access to her. After she learns their foreign policy, she'll field limited questions.

This pick shows how impulsive Mccain is. He doesn't know her and he only talked once to her. And that was enough for him to put her a heart beat away from running the United States of America.

[Banned]

As far as Palin being a hunter / outdoors woman and thinking she cares about nature, think again.

She wants Polar Bears removed from the endangered species list. Even though their habitat is shrinking from global warming at an alarming rate.

Why does she want them removed - To drill for oil.

She has also made a stance (remember her husband works for British Petroleum) that global warming is not happening and has nothing to to with pollution of our atmosphere. She is in denial that man has anything to do with global warming - even though it has been proven otherwise.

The polar bear population is at an all time high. There is no global warming related to human activity. We just came out of an 11 year sun spot active period. As a matter of fact, for the first time in over 100 years, August was a month without a single sun spot sighting by scientists.

According to that hot yellow ball in the sky (particularly the sun spot activity cycles), we are in for 11 years of lower than average temps. Just as long as the ice stays thick enough for us to drill, drill, and drill some more.

[BDR]

Gotta say I was impressed with her "stage presents." The jury's still out for me but she didn't do anything to scare me away.

Rudy Guiliani, however, did. Damn, just about the time I start thinking, "I like Rudy," then he keeps talking.

r:>)

[ZappasXWife]

Yea, they need to muffle that guy. The National convention is certainly not the time or place to be making snide remarks and making fun of the other party in the way he does. Let the TV commercials do that stuff. How inappropriate and just not classy. How old is he, 12? He has bad stage presents.

[Hawk]

Captain Grammar where are you ?

Stage presence would be the charisma you bring to the stage.

Presents would be gifts you bring.

Although McCain probably likes her presents.

[BDR]

My favorite Rudy line from last night:

"John McCain can face the enemy. He can win, and he can bring victory for this country."

Isn't winning and bringing victory the same thing? I was waiting for him to further explain:

"McCain will defeat the enemy. He will cause the enemy to lose. McCain will also triumph in Iraq. He will realize the opposite of losing."



r:>)

[BDR]

Captain Grammar where are you ?

Stage presence would be the charisma you bring to the stage.

Presents would be gifts you bring.

Although McCain probably likes her presents.

Are you new to Rockpage, Hawk? The whole "stage presents" thing is several years old now and there's a reason for the quotes that were included. Do yourself a favor and check out some threads that don't pertain to politics once in a while, then you can be included on some of the inside jokes.

r:>)

[Hawk]

Captain Grammar where are you ?

Stage presence would be the charisma you bring to the stage.

Presents would be gifts you bring.

Although McCain probably likes her presents.

Are you new to Rockpage, Hawk? The whole "stage presents" thing is several years old now and there's a reason for the quotes that were included. Do yourself a favor and check out some threads that don't pertain to politics once in a while, then you can be included on some of the inside jokes.

r:>)

Wow.....sorry man. Nailed for being out of the loop. Carry on.........

[Capt. Grammar]

Captain Grammar where are you ?

Stage presence would be the charisma you bring to the stage.

Presents would be gifts you bring.

Although McCain probably likes her presents.

Captain Grammar, where are you?

Stage presence would refer to the charisma one brings to the stage.

Presents would refer to the gifts one brings, although McCain probably likes Palin's presents.

There is a requirement for a comma after the name of the person you're addressing in the first sentence and the space before your question mark is inappropriate.

In your second and third sentences, "one brings" is more appropriate than "you bring" because both statements apply to more than one specific person. I've also changed two instances of "would be" to "would refer to."

Your third and fourth sentences flow better as one sentence, separated with a comma, due to the fact that "although" is a conjunction.

Finally, since Gov. Palin was not referenced by name anywhere in your post, it's a smart move to name her in the last sentence instead of using "her." This will eliminate any confusion about who you're speaking.

Wow.....sorry man. Nailed for being out of the loop. Carry on.........

Wow, sorry man. I've been nailed for being out of the loop. Carry on ...

It is generally accepted that an ellipsis consists of only three periods; however, a comma works better in the first instance. Your second line was a sentence fragment, thus the addition of "I've been."

You're welcome.

[CHICKSINGA]

I grew up in a poor family. My Dad was a hardworking guy, but he was also a hard drinking guy and he had a heart attack at 37. My Mom was “diagnosed” as manic depressive at the age of 24. Very early on they both were granted disability and received monthly checks. From the outside someone might say, oh that’s tough, they deserved the help. And most people would say that was the right thing for the government to do.

But let me tell you what the reality of the situation was really like. My Mom soon realized that in order to get that check, she basically had to stay “sick”. She learned to manipulate doctors and people to continue her assistance. (and now at 62 she is facing a nursing home because she won’t get up off her lazy butt and do what she is capable of. Yes, you probably think I’m cruel, but I have learned after a lifetime with my Mom that a true bi-polar disorder person cannot manifest the illness at will like she does at her convenience) My Dad had more time to go out and drink and as a result developed esophageal cancer and died at 63. The programs made to assist people have become an industry unto themselves and only enable rather than rehabilitate. How many people do you know that receive SSI benefits for reasons other than retirement? I know more than I have time to list. Was Social Security created for this purpose? No. But we have to help people, right? Of course we do. But the problem has become that people have learned to manipulate the system and abuse and there are too few checks and balances to make sure that doesn’t happen. Why? Because these government programs are funded by grants that need to spend the money allotted or they don’t receive the funds. And that leads to abuse. (and ironically these groups are the first to bitch about the future of Social Security)

The kicker? These programs are funded by the government. And who funds the government? Uh, that would be taxpayers. Not some wizard behind the curtain or Big Daddy in the sky with a bag full o’ moola. Tax payers. And guess who rarely pays income tax, but in fact receives extra money from the government called “Earned Income” tax credits? People who receive government funds. Sweet deal, no? I can’t tell you how many people I’ve come across who say things like “ Why shouldn’t I get mine?” I become incredulous simply because I’d like to know why people who don’t want to work OR pay taxes think they are “owed” something. For what?
Growing up in the atmosphere I did only made me resolve to work hard to escape the mindset of “assistance”. Sadly there are members of my family who fell right in with it and their lives mirror my parents. I cannot support a candidate whose credo is to help the “disenfranchised” citizen because I know full well what the result will be. I advocate responsibility and hard work. Socialized government is the next step to communism and that is a ludicrous notion. National Healthcare? Hmmm, look up articles about Canada’s system and get back to me. Why not offer tax credits to employers that provide great healthcare and retirement benefits that would encourage people to work for them? Or is it just too easy to get it for free?

Don’t get me wrong and think that I am a staunch believer in the Republican Party. The deficit is a major issue. The “war” was mismanaged horribly. The Bush’s have their oil interests at the forefront. The Moral Majority Right is, much of the time, hypocritical zealots, judging harshly and not keeping their own backyard in order. BOTH parties are severely out of touch with reality. As we are, as citizens. We need to re-examine our lives and see the true picture of what we are as people and as a nation. We fight a politically correct war and wonder why those who fight without regard to politics are hard to vanquish. We have border issues, yet we spend billions to rebuild a country that is not our own. We have economic and budget issues and still I talk to people from India on the phone about my accounts rather than someone in the US. I wait in line at Wal-Mart for a family to cash in their food stamps with the 4 children they can’t seem to take care of only to see them drive in a nicer car than mine. We want energy independence and yet we’re not willing to do the things to have it. (offshore and in-country drilling, nuclear energy). We are quick to judge without looking in the mirror.

I think we need a new party. The Realist Party. The slogan? Work Hard, Get Real!

I mean come on. And what about that lady on disability for endrometriosis? Maybe she was born with it.

Ps. Endometriosis is menstrual cramps, dude. Gimme a break!

[Hawk]

Bill Clinton made welfare cuts.

Tony Snow used to brag that GW spent more on the poor than any other administration.

It's funny that when the Democrats are in office they are welfare people and when the Republicans are in office they are referred to as the poor.

But I haven't heard either candidate discuss welfare.

Welfare fraud does need to be dealt with.

Grammar miester, loop miester, your caring guidance is much appreciated.

[BDR]

Man, it's annoying and somewhat juvenile when someone points out spelling and grammatical mistakes on a message board, isn't it?

Except, of course, when it's our good friend, the Captain. Thank God for Capt. Grammar!!!

r:>)

[JackANSI]

I grew up in a poor family. My Dad was a hardworking guy, but he was also a hard drinking guy and he had a heart attack at 37. My Mom was “diagnosed” as manic depressive at the age of 24. Very early on they both were granted disability and received monthly checks. From the outside someone might say, oh that’s tough, they deserved the help. And most people would say that was the right thing for the government to do.

But let me tell you what the reality of the situation was really like. My Mom soon realized that in order to get that check, she basically had to stay “sick”. She learned to manipulate doctors and people to continue her assistance. (and now at 62 she is facing a nursing home because she won’t get up off her lazy butt and do what she is capable of. Yes, you probably think I’m cruel, but I have learned after a lifetime with my Mom that a true bi-polar disorder person cannot manifest the illness at will like she does at her convenience) My Dad had more time to go out and drink and as a result developed esophageal cancer and died at 63. The programs made to assist people have become an industry unto themselves and only enable rather than rehabilitate. How many people do you know that receive SSI benefits for reasons other than retirement? I know more than I have time to list. Was Social Security created for this purpose? No. But we have to help people, right? Of course we do. But the problem has become that people have learned to manipulate the system and abuse and there are too few checks and balances to make sure that doesn’t happen. Why? Because these government programs are funded by grants that need to spend the money allotted or they don’t receive the funds. And that leads to abuse. (and ironically these groups are the first to bitch about the future of Social Security)

The kicker? These programs are funded by the government. And who funds the government? Uh, that would be taxpayers. Not some wizard behind the curtain or Big Daddy in the sky with a bag full o’ moola. Tax payers. And guess who rarely pays income tax, but in fact receives extra money from the government called “Earned Income” tax credits? People who receive government funds. Sweet deal, no? I can’t tell you how many people I’ve come across who say things like “ Why shouldn’t I get mine?” I become incredulous simply because I’d like to know why people who don’t want to work OR pay taxes think they are “owed” something. For what?
Growing up in the atmosphere I did only made me resolve to work hard to escape the mindset of “assistance”. Sadly there are members of my family who fell right in with it and their lives mirror my parents. I cannot support a candidate whose credo is to help the “disenfranchised” citizen because I know full well what the result will be. I advocate responsibility and hard work. Socialized government is the next step to communism and that is a ludicrous notion. National Healthcare? Hmmm, look up articles about Canada’s system and get back to me. Why not offer tax credits to employers that provide great healthcare and retirement benefits that would encourage people to work for them? Or is it just too easy to get it for free?

Don’t get me wrong and think that I am a staunch believer in the Republican Party. The deficit is a major issue. The “war” was mismanaged horribly. The Bush’s have their oil interests at the forefront. The Moral Majority Right is, much of the time, hypocritical zealots, judging harshly and not keeping their own backyard in order. BOTH parties are severely out of touch with reality. As we are, as citizens. We need to re-examine our lives and see the true picture of what we are as people and as a nation. We fight a politically correct war and wonder why those who fight without regard to politics are hard to vanquish. We have border issues, yet we spend billions to rebuild a country that is not our own. We have economic and budget issues and still I talk to people from India on the phone about my accounts rather than someone in the US. I wait in line at Wal-Mart for a family to cash in their food stamps with the 4 children they can’t seem to take care of only to see them drive in a nicer car than mine. We want energy independence and yet we’re not willing to do the things to have it. (offshore and in-country drilling, nuclear energy). We are quick to judge without looking in the mirror.

I think we need a new party. The Realist Party. The slogan? Work Hard, Get Real!

I mean come on. And what about that lady on disability for endrometriosis? Maybe she was born with it.

Ps. Endometriosis is menstrual cramps, dude. Gimme a break!

Pretty close to what I think/feel..

But in my mind it is a required program to have. I justify the negatives by the thought that just maybe someone who needs it and uses it correctly might gain from the program. Without that hope of it actually doing good for someone I would probably say "kick'em to the curb".

I know of people I went to school with (who used to be friends) who have told me they were trying to have another kid so they could get bigger assistance checks... I have not spoken to them since...



It sickens me that people like republicans think that certain kinds of education, even if it is sex-ed, is a bad thing and should be removed just because they don't agree with it on a religous/personal level...

I do take great joy in the fact that Palin is struggling against the seeds she and her party probably helped plant. Karma is a bitch.



Ps. Endometriosis is actually cells from the uterine lining that have embedded/attached themselves to regions of the pelvis inside the body. It can cause worsened cramps. Its thought that they are either caused by menstral reflux or are cells that were supposed to be part of the uterine lining that were "misplaced" during embronic development that become actived later in life.

(I wanted to be an MD once... till I learned that you can't save everybody..)