Reply With Quote
Why? Don't you think it's a fact they used that photo to raise questions about Mrs. Palin's (lack of) gravitas?
Those two statements within a mere paragraph from each other is some more delicious irony for this forum.
Why? Don't you think it's a fact they used that photo to raise questions about Mrs. Palin's (lack of) gravitas?
Palin said much the same herself.
Yet, you do the very same to others. You dish it out but you can't take it. Pity. I thought you were made of stronger stuff. You shouldn't mock others so lightly, if you dislike being ill-used yourself.
Attempts to enforce strict topicality rarely work here. The conversations tend to be fluid and wide-ranging. Pity your forbearance is too pinched to deal with anything not directly on topic. People will think you're ducking issues -- which quite literally, you are.
So what? About 60% of Americans already think Palin unqualified for high office, so apparently Palin's gravitas was ailing far before Newsweek's editors scurrilously attempted to sink it with the frame from the Runner's World shoot.
I seriously doubt the tendentiousness of Newsweek's editorial choices has changed anyone's mind -- but it has inflamed crybaby Palinistas. Of that there is no doubt whatsoever.
What I believe or don't is completely irrelevant to what is or isn't a fact. I was more amused by your unequal application of your initial standard to what you said a mere few sentences later.
No she didn't.
Proof. When did I mock others opinions aprioristicaly? When did I, having mocked others opinions, demanded, afterwards, a lecture on the issue?
You should calm down. I wasn't trying to duck issues - in fact, I've been answering to your posts, meaning that your suggestion is nonsensical. I was just pointing out that the issue was irrelevant to the point in case. From now on, every time you use a similar phrase, I'm going to accuse you of trying to enforce strict topicality and that your forbearance is too pinched to deal with anything not directly on topic.
So what? I'm not one to believe that majorities are always right. That is not a valid reason to justify Newsweek behaviour.So what? About 60% of Americans already think Palin unqualified for high office, so apparently Palin's gravitas was ailing far before Newsweek's editors scurrilously attempted to sink it with the frame from the Runner's World shoot.
Are you a crybaby Palinista? Considering the amount of ad hominem remarks you have been making you certainly seem to be inflamed by the issue. Personally, I'm just discussing Newsweek editorial choice and if Palin's reaction is similar to Obama's reaction some months ago.
So, what is relevant to what is or is not a fact?
I dispute that I applied different standards.
If you want to compare the Palin and Obama photos you can do so on many fronts. First of all, being portrayed as Muslim carries with it obvious negative aspects in politics today. Sarah Palin's picture was in the context of a woman who is healthy and was a runner but she feels it was used in a sexist manner in which I assume she means she's being presented as a mere sex symbol. I think one can judge for themselves which is far worse especially in the context of an active political campaign.
Secondly, the Plain picture is recent and was posed for in a photo shoot. The Obama photograph was neither. I also believe the Obama picture was used actively in a directly political manner during an active political campaign where as the Palin cover was used by a magazine unaffiliated with any political organization during a book campaign (the cover has already done far more good to her than harm).
These are large and substantive differences.
Are we really having to define what a fact is? Unless you were present for the Newsweek decision you are making an assumption and presenting it as a fact. No matter how informed you may view your assumption to be it does not make it a fact and is exactly the same type of behavior you accused WH of.
Yeah, she did.
When you do it, there is some objective basis; when others do it, it is subjective and aprioristic. Gotcha.
You're still ducking the fact that Palin's resignation makes her objectively less serious.
Hairsplitting. You're saying Palin's behavior in office, and her resignation from it, is unrelated to the discussion of her gravitas and seriousness. You're wrong. So obviously wrong, that you could not possibly be right.- in fact, I've been answering to your posts, meaning that your suggestion is nonsensical. I was just pointing out that the issue was irrelevant to the point in case.
I did not justify it. Most everyone here seems willing to concede Newsweek is less than objective. So what are you still conmplaining about?
I find the Palinistas amusing and somewhat pathetic. You certainly are not dispelling the impression now.
You'd be the only one. Good luck finding someone to discuss it with. It was never of much interest to me.
Why did I need to be present for the Newsweek decision? They said they decided to purposely pick that particular photo in order to raise questions about her seriousness and gravitas! What do you need to consider this a fact? A personal message from God himself?
Winehole, I finnaly understood: you wrote all those posts to tell me that nobody is interested in discussing the Newsweek editorial behaviours and if her reaction to it isn't similar to Obama's (this while I was and am discussing those exact same issues with another posters) while trying to force to discuss your emotional anti-Palin traumas - and accusing me of ducking issues if I don't comply.
Personally I don't give a damn if it's of much interest to you or not. Am I allowed to do not giving a damn about your preferences about what should be discussed in this forum?
I was ignorant of the further comments made this morning on behalf of Newsweek and my understanding was the only comments made were the ones by the editor as of yesterday. I now understand why your statement is a fact and I admit you've been correct and weren't applying inconsistent standards in your post.
I apologize.
you're ducking who palin is.
All the better.
You were never required to care in the first place.
And the goal of the people who wanted to use that photo at that time was to raise doubts about Obama's citizenship and religion, not to illustrate that he once visited a country to which he had no previous ties whatsoever.
I think both subjects overreacted and a come off as whiners. They're public figures. Live with it.
"raise doubts about Palin's gravitas and seriousness"
no doubts, she has neither, nor any other qualifications, like enough votes to win on a national ticket.
she is just doing what she has to do cry sexism but the damage or sucess has been made, people are looking at her picture and talking about it. she got the press and kept in mind to have her principles out there
I think this thread represents fairly well what she is: A very polarizing person.
IMHO, that's actually what goes against her as far as being presidential.
She's really not the polarizing figure. The polarizing figure was Bush.
#1. Presidents who don't win the popular vote are always polarizing.
#2. He's a very naturally polarizing person.
#3. That whole "pre-emptive" war was a very polarizing manuever.
But the extreme polarity has existed for quite some time now.
I don't really agree with that.IMHO, that's actually what goes against her as far as being presidential.
That she intends to fight the problem by going above it's head. She has a track record of doing that.
You might as well conclude that Pop should not taken seriously as a GM since he resigned the post. I assure you, he should be taken quite seriously as a GM, rather it was the job he truly wanted or not.
Horrible logic.
She also resigned her position on the Oil and Gas board of Alaska...did that mean she couldn't hack it? Too much for her? Because that was a Governorship and VP candidacy ago.
You are jumping to a conclusion but it's not a particularly well thought out conclusion. It's actually a pretty narrow conclusion. Tunnel-like.
Take it however you want of course, but you are ignoring a great deal of other possibilities in jumping to that conclusion.
I take it as a positive...if she wants to be the President and her political enemies are abusing our legal system purely for political advantage, and they are of course, then I think she clearly did the right thing, for the people of Alaska, for herself.
I don't know, I'm just not getting a slinking off in defeat vibe, I don't think that's the accurate description of what is transpiring at all. Maybe I'll go watch one of the 600 interviews she has done lately just to see if I am off on that, but somehow I don't think my opinion is going to change.
Probably got sick you guys going, well she shouldn't trot them out there like props if she doesn't want us to attack them.
Obviously...you guys are still going to go after the kids whether they are around or not.
Because it's the type of person you are.
Piece
of
whottt
would you or wouldn't you impregnante her
i want this to finally be settled
Not just for the sake of impregnating her.
<<<<Not an anti-abortionist.
she thought it would help. actually, they likely told her to carry it.
it didn't help.
so she flushed it.
like a piece of .
Just can't leave the little children alone can you clammy?
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
