BF2S Forums Sarah Palin

Because vagina is nice.

Is a Christian a creationist?

Macbeth wrote:

Because vagina is nice.

Don't need to marry a Catholic for that.

Last edited by War Man (2011-06-20 13:52:07)

Shocking wrote:

lowing wrote:

Sad thing is, for pages I took you for your word that Palin wanted to ban books as fact without checking, even though I never heard that. What else are you wrong about her, or is that it?

I got that from Ty earlier in the thread. I didn't know about the books thing until he mentioned it, and when I read it I wasn't surprised if it were true as it almost fits with the image she's been displaying so far.

I read it in Time Magazine. I looked into it further and uncovered a list. I should make this clear now: the list was fake. I apologise for that, it's my own fault and I should have researched it more. What is not false is that she inquired about banning books although no-one but Palin knows exactly what books she had in mind.

I recommend you read the article about Palin's Mayoralty, it is a pretty good indicator of her politics and her approach. It's not overly negative, it paints a picture of an ambitious woman who is strongly driven by her moral values.

I'd like to touch on a matter you raised earlier lowing when you questioned why Obama's academic records haven't been made public. I keep thinking how pleased I would be to have someone paw through my own academic records and the answer is not very. I'll freely admit that I watch porn but that doesn't mean I want someone to go through my Internet history. It speaks to a fundamental right to privacy. Now I know why you want his academic record to be released, it's not for your own peace of mind it's because you relish the opportunity to criticise him more. I can see it now: Obama's academic records show he got a C in an ethics paper and suddenly you get headlines like "PRESIDENT OBAMA IS UNETHICAL!" This is the type of media world we live in, it's the type of media system where Sarah Palin suggests banning offensive books and someone comes up with a list of what books she wants banned. This used to be the thing that media was meant to protect against - but I digress, that's a whole different debate.

What's it going to take anyway, how much of Obama's private life do you want made public before you'll be happy? And what good does it do? No-one ever demanded Bush's academic record did they? He claimed he was a C student and we took him at his word - which was probably being generous. Obama was summa cum laude and President of the Harvard Law Review, you say he didn't deserve these honours but you're basing this on your own dislike for the man rather than any evidence. When's it going to be enough?

Lowing you've shown yourself to be anything but fair and balanced, in your view the more released about Obama's private life the more opportunity you'll have to criticise him on irrelevent details. I don't see any benefit in that, we get enough irrelevent details as it is be it Obama mispronouncing "corpsman" or Palin's wardrobe.

Palin would have been worse. She is not politically savvy, she is not very articulate, got her geography wrong on more than one occassion - etc. She's already been the subject of an inordinate amount of political gaffes.

I'll agree with you that (especially in Europe) democrat presidents are generally more popular than republican ones. To me personally however the difference doesn't matter all that much. I don't have to vote in your elections and I can understand both parties. I judge primarily on what sort of impact the contenders would have internationally, mainly in regards to relations with European nations.

Ty wrote:

Shocking wrote:

lowing wrote:

Sad thing is, for pages I took you for your word that Palin wanted to ban books as fact without checking, even though I never heard that. What else are you wrong about her, or is that it?

I got that from Ty earlier in the thread. I didn't know about the books thing until he mentioned it, and when I read it I wasn't surprised if it were true as it almost fits with the image she's been displaying so far.

I read it in Time Magazine. I looked into it further and uncovered a list. I should make this clear now: the list was fake. I apologise for that, it's my own fault and I should have researched it more. What is not false is that she inquired about banning books although no-one but Palin knows exactly what books she had in mind.

I recommend you read the article about Palin's Mayoralty, it is a pretty good indicator of her politics and her approach. It's not overly negative, it paints a picture of an ambitious woman who is strongly driven by her moral values.

I'd like to touch on a matter you raised earlier lowing when you questioned why Obama's academic records haven't been made public. I keep thinking how pleased I would be to have someone paw through my own academic records and the answer is not very. I'll freely admit that I watch porn but that doesn't mean I want someone to go through my Internet history. It speaks to a fundamental right to privacy. Now I know why you want his academic record to be released, it's not for your own peace of mind it's because you relish the opportunity to criticise him more. I can see it now: Obama's academic records show he got a C in an ethics paper and suddenly you get headlines like "PRESIDENT OBAMA IS UNETHICAL!" This is the type of media world we live in, it's the type of media system where Sarah Palin suggests banning offensive books and someone comes up with a list of what books she wants banned. This used to be the thing that media was meant to protect against - but I digress, that's a whole different debate.

What's it going to take anyway, how much of Obama's private life do you want made public before you'll be happy? And what good does it do? No-one ever demanded Bush's academic record did they? He claimed he was a C student and we took him at his word - which was probably being generous. Obama was summa cum laude and President of the Harvard Law Review, you say he didn't deserve these honours but you're basing this on your own dislike for the man rather than any evidence. When's it going to be enough?

Lowing you've shown yourself to be anything but fair and balanced, in your view the more released about Obama's private life the more opportunity you'll have to criticise him on irrelevent details. I don't see any benefit in that, we get enough irrelevent details as it is be it Obama mispronouncing "corpsman" or Palin's wardrobe.

It is relevant because we are supposed to know the people we elect. No other president has refused to open up their lives to scrutiny as they become public figures. It is part of the deal. His credentials are relevant to the positions he has been awarded, and for people such as those on this board, being qualified seems to be pretty important. Somehow, however, Obama does not need to show his qualifications for anything.

Plenty of leftist want Tom Sawyer banned as well, and I am pretty sure they are Obama supporters, so the banning books thing has plenty of disgust to go around there as well and NOT exclusive to Palin.

I am as fair and balanced as any other member here. Or can you explain how Obama can carry the same polices os Bush and yet, somehow, are not condemned for it like Bush in this forum.

As an example, if Palin said 'corpseman" it would be used in this forum and probably by you as an example of her 'retardation", since Obama did it, well, it was just a mispronunciation. What would be saying if Palin refused to release her emails, or her transcripts. Surely, you would not dismiss it as irrelevant. and you say I am not fair an balanced?

Last edited by lowing (2011-06-20 14:32:35)

I call those political gaffes. Her not being able to name a newspaper she reads, fair enough anyone has such a moment - I didn't use that as an argument. Obama's corpsman, same deal.

War Man wrote:

Jay wrote:

Just want to defend one of lowings points. Science and religion can coexist. I know there are a lot of rabid atheists here but I'm perfectly ok if a person of faith accepts evolution and chalks it up to intelligent design. I'm cool with them attributing the big bang to their god. Its not like you can prove it wasnt done by their god anyway. I'd rather accept them on these terms than dismiss them completely because of intellectual bigotry.

The only people I can't stomach are creationists.

Why are you marrying a Catholic then if you can't stomach them?

Because she's not a brainwashed bible thumper that thinks the world is 5000 years old? She was raised catholic, it doesnt mean it dominates every facet of her life. One day you will realize what a tiny minority people like you and your parents really are. Its going to make you a very angry person.

Shocking wrote:

I don't believe he will

Will what? Leave his mothers womb? Maybe. Keeps saying he wants to join the army. He'll be an alcoholic within a year.

Shocking wrote:

I call those political gaffes. Her not being able to name a newspaper she reads, fair enough anyone has such a moment - I didn't use that as an argument. Obama's corpsman, same deal.

Do you call having your circle of friends being made up of felons, tax cheats, terrorists and anti-American preachers as a gaffe as well?

I mean why is this board not screaming for his head like they did Bush for "illegal wars"? If you want a TRUE "illegal war", Obama going to Libya is illegal than Iraq or Afghanistan. but again this "fair and balanced" forum refuses to pin "war monger" or "Nazi" on  him. Instead they wanna focus on Palin who isn't even in govt. at the moment.

Shocking wrote:

Jay wrote:

One day you will realize what a tiny minority people like you and your parents really are. Its going to make you a very angry person.

That

I'd be pretty pissed off if I discovered one day that my parents had brainwashed me and kept me locked away like the intellectual equivalent of veal. Then again, I was never a member of an obvious cult so what do I know?

lowing wrote:

Shocking wrote:

I call those political gaffes. Her not being able to name a newspaper she reads, fair enough anyone has such a moment - I didn't use that as an argument. Obama's corpsman, same deal.

Do you call having your circle of friends being made up of felons, tax cheats, terrorists and anti-American preachers as a gaffe as well?

I mean why is this board not screaming for his head like they did Bush for "illegal wars"? If you want a TRUE "illegal war", Obama going to Libya is illegal than Iraq or Afghanistan. but again this "fair and balanced" forum refuses to pin "war monger" or "Nazi" on  him. Instead they wanna focus on Palin who isn't even in govt. at the moment.

Is this you being fair and balanced lowing? Do you seriously think Afghanistan, Iraq and Libya are on the same scale? Let me answer that for you: you don't, because if you did you'd be braindead.

i like warman

eleven bravo wrote:

i dont