The Palin Controversies Keep Coming

[Person Man]

Again. I want to have a fair debate with this woman, but it appears that she, herself, is simply smoke and mirrors. A nationalist fundamentalist who cannot control her own home and has conspired against America? What am I supposed to think?

[Person Man]

Again. I want to have a fair debate with this woman, but it appears that she, herself, is simply smoke and mirrors. A nationalist fundamentalist who cannot control her own home and has conspired against America? What am I supposed to think?

Stop jumping to conclusions and actually look at the facts. Every smear you leftists have tried to throw at Palin thus far has failed.

Says who? Can you explain every scandal? How are we supposed to react?

[Person Man]

Again. I want to have a fair debate with this woman, but it appears that she, herself, is simply smoke and mirrors. A nationalist fundamentalist who cannot control her own home and has conspired against America? What am I supposed to think?

Stop jumping to conclusions and actually look at the facts. Every smear you leftists have tried to throw at Palin thus far has failed.

Says who? Can you explain every scandal? How are we supposed to react?

You're supposed to react by looking at the facts rather than blindly accepting everything you read at the DailyKos.

* Attack No. 1: Palin's an extremist creationist. Fact was, her statement was that debate on evolution should not be supressed, but did not say creationism should be actively taught. Her position is no different from mainstream conservatism.

* Attack No. 2: Palin supported Pat Buchanan. She actually supported Steve Forbes in both 1996 and 2000. She just appeared at a Buchanan fundraiser, probably to build connections in Alaskan politics since he didn't even donate to Buchanan.

* Attack No. 3: Her kid with Down Syndrome was actually her daughter's. Well, this has been debunked already with the revelation that Bristol is pregnant with her old child, but even without knowing that the evidence was very flimsy. There were several pictures of Palin pregnant with Trig, plus teenage moms almost never have kids with Down.

*Attack No. 4: She was a member secessionist party! The AIS' secessionism is in name only and they're actually right-libertarian, in line with most of Palin's beliefs. And they even run an candidate against her in 2006.

There have been more attacks; I don't have the time or will to dig them up. But you should get the picture by now.

I'll let her go on 3. ...but I don't buy the explainations for 4.  Things look a little weird for 1 and 2, as well.

[Person Man]

Can you care to explain why a lot Alaskans elected two AIP members under the AIP ticket to the executive mansion in 1990 or shall we pretend that never happend?

...but is that right for the rest of America?

#1- Her behavior seems to warrant a closer look into this. I mean, she has some pretty radical views on a plethora of issues and left the Catholic church to be a Pentacostal. That doesn't mean I am being intolerant, it does mean that perhaps the Catholic church made her really uncomfortable.

#2- So attending Pat Buchanan's POLITICAL meetings and being called a brigadier of his and still not considered being in association with Buchanan mean that Obama's non-political relationship with Wright still counts?  

[Person Man]

According to his myspace he doesn't want kids.

I did laugh at this, but OMG does no normal human being deserve to have this kind of scrutiny.

Irony....

[Person Man]

Can you care to explain why a lot Alaskans elected two AIP members under the AIP ticket to the executive mansion in 1990 or shall we pretend that never happend?

...but is that right for the rest of America?

So you are saying, that it's wrong for Alaskans to support a party that seemed to be able to put thier interests first rather than political bickering of both the Alaskan GOP and the Dems. The AIP in power did no damage to the Alaskan political scene and at the end the day simply faded into the night as thier purpose was surved as a warning to both parties to stop thier shenanigans. The AIP itself, let's not forget, was HIJACKED by nationalistic (here nationalistic is in regards to pro-Union) leadership that used the AIP as base for getting real reforms. William Hickel himself disagreed with the AIP platform regarding a secession referendum. Many peple simply used the party as a political tool to get a job done. That's why I don't see the AIP problem as a big deal.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Well as a Roman Catholic, if she left that's fine, she can say that. I pray for her immortal soul as the next person. But if you are going to turn this into an accusation of anti-catholicism, I would warn you about going down this road.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I never said anything about Wright at all. I have been on a 4 year hiatus from this board. So don't go around throwing things about that you have no clue about what I thought. I as a Huckabee supporter agreed with Huckabee's stance on the Wright issue. I gave Obama the benefit of the doubt on reverend Wright, the same ought to go to Gov. Palin.

#2-  I don't see how that refutes my arguement, seeing how there are others that link Obama to Wright.

#1- I'm not talking anti-catholicism, I'm talking about the Conservative Catholic church not being conservative enough for her.

AIP issue- you would be C-NH if your party stated that it should use infants as aircraft fuel? 

[Person Man]

#2-  I don't see how that refutes my arguement, seeing how there are others that link Obama to Wright.

I'm not letting you get away with this. This amounts to a Tu quoque fallacy and you know it. You also made the isinuation that I supported the lambasting of Obama over the Wright-Phleger controversy.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

You have heard of the Reformation, right? You know that guy Martin Luther who left the church over reasons of theology... You may have heard of it or him...

You must be logged in to read this quote.

But using infants as aircraft fuel is an objectively and intrinsically evil act. I would have a moral obligation not to support that party because of that stance. Just as I am not a Democrat for that reason. However there are matters that are not intrinsically or extrinsically immoral (to use Aristotelian terms here) that are open up to legitimate debate and support. Asking for a referendum on secession may not be prudent but it is neither extrinsically evil nor intrinsically evil. Also the AIP in the 1990's softened its stance on adherence to the party's platform as changed into a reform-type party.

I am just saying that there were tons of choices of churches and she made a special type of choice that implicates certain trains on to her.  We have decided 140 years ago that succesion from the nation was an immoral act and have lost 2 million people in the process. ...and YES, you do have to deal with your side's attack on Obama for Wright.