witness23
Veteran Expediter
You must be one of them tree hugging, PETA card carrying liberals.
Doing the Dishes
- Thread starter Turtle
- Start date
You must be one of them tree hugging, PETA card carrying liberals.
its not a personal attack..its the truth..YOU have no children...so i am not going to take any kind of advice on anything child related from you..just as you wont take any driving advise from the checkout person @ walmart..
and yes it has something to do with raising a child...because you dont allow them to use a dog as a ladder..thats raising a child to respect other living things...not to just walk all over them ..sorry its how i see it...how I raised MY SON!
i have never ever been any more honest when i tell you none of this has anything to do with politics...i hate politics..the reason i am getting mad is you are telling me what i am thinking...anyone who knows me knows i stay out of politics.. anti-religion..gay rights..animal causes...i am your man...NOT POLITICS..
i just hate Palin because she is a horrible example of any accomplished person...she quit...and people put her on a pedestal?? know very little of her..dont need to..just need to know she cant even finish her job..so she gets no respect of any kind from me.
Last edited:
When there's controversy, disagreements, different opinions - it's interesting.
Interesting is what keeps a web site like this alive and thriving. The "small talk" and chatter and banter pretty much interests only those directly participating, while the disagreements are good reading even to those who aren't, IMO. Depending upon those involved, we might actually learn something, or at least see the other side of the question.
Yet the actual words posted say otherwise.
... Said the guy who just finished telling me what was IN MY HEAD. Too funny.
The experiment was to see who would filter their comments through a political filter. So you're right, no matter what any of you say, it won't change my mind, because the comments are already there, already filtered... or not.
I appreciate the effort, but there's really no need to reinforce the fact that your response was filtered through a political filter.
Well, it took you longer than I expected for you to mention the "two separate posts," I'll give you credit for that. But here's the thing, your response was so heavily filtered by politics (and clearly your hatred of Palin) that your first post was actually off-topic completely, and did nothing other than attack Palin and, as you say, didn't even address the pictures at all. You were so focused in on Palin that you couldn't even bother to address the pictures, which is the topic of he thread. Wow, that's some serious focus right there.
But then, either because you realize that you hadn't even addressed the pictures at all, or very deliberately so as to later claim you made two separate posts, one that addressed Palin and one that did not address her in any way (so as to be able to claim that politics had no effect on your comment), you immediately posted the second post that addressed the pictures, leaving Palin completely out of that post. The problem is twofold (not even counting the fact that you could have just as easily edited the first post and added the second post's contents), one, the immediacy of the second post, less than 4 minutes after the first (which is about the time it takes to refresh, compose, review and post), and two, the very first word of your second post. You directly connected them into a single post with that word. So it's two different posts, technically, but realistically it's nothing more than one post separated into two different article numbers.
The incessant bloviating (A.K.A., the sentence) that lost your attention was in direct response to your asinine suggestion that I add a redundant question to the premise. So you can try to make this about me if you want, but that's all on you.
I don't know what to say other than it must suck not to be able to focus your attention on an entire paragraph for more than a second or two.
BOOM! No is isn't. I understand how some people feel about it, but not you. Because you filtered your response through politics and posted first about Palin, and then commented about standing on the dog, you shot and killed your credibility. You may be genuine and sincere about kids standing on dogs, but I have more reason to not believe it than I do in believing it. Because your comment was politically biased, your position on kids standing on dogs come across as a position of political convenience rather than a position of personal conviction. (a la Michael Vick)
I will, of course, change my mind in a bleeding-heart second if you can point me to any post of yours anywhere on the Internet that professes the same sentiment in a non-political context.
A personal attack and the truth aren't mutually exclusive. Something can be both. For example, yes, it is the truth that I have no children, and yes, you used that to attack me. The fact that I have no children is wholly irrelevant to my values regarding kids sitting on dogs. You actually stated that because I haven't raised a kid of my own, that I therefore "would not know squat didly about passing on your values." Do you have any idea how stupid that statement is? I many not have experienced passing on my values to my kids, but I have certainly passed on my values to others, kids and adults alike. You also stated, in fine simpleton fashion, that "interacting with somebody elses child and raising your own is a huge difference...but you would not know being that you have no childern.." You are obviously utterly clueless that one of the reasons I don't have any children of my own is because I am astoundingly aware of the vast difference between interacting with someone else's kids and having to deal with my own kids every day all day forever and ever. I am astutely aware of interacting with my nieces and nephews, for example, and then being able to have the luxury of handing them back to their parents when I've had enough.
Be that as it may, me interacting with kids interacting with my dogs is totally irrelevant to whether or not I have raised kids. I could have lied and said I had kids, but I answered honestly, knowing full well what you would do with my answer, which is attack me personally to try and discredit me and my opinions as being worthless because I'm not worthy of my opinion due to criteria you have created, which is irrelevant.
Actually, I didn't give you any kind of advice on anything child related.
I'm not telling you how to raise your kids. Raise them however you want. You SHOULD raise them however you want. They're your kids. That's actually one thing I'm very passionate about, despite the fact that I don't have kids. I think parents should be able to raise their kids in any way they want, without any outside interference of any kind, especially from yahoo wingwang organizations like Child Protective Services that need to kidnap as many children as possible in order to ensure their jobs.
Again, I'm not telling what you're thinking. I'm just going by what you posted. You may very well indeed hate politics, but your response nevertheless referenced Palin when it was unnecessary to do so. The only reason to reference her was politics.
I hate to be the bearer of bad news, but that entire paragraph is 100.0 politics.
Last edited:
That's pretty much the whole point of debate.
Does this same condescending standard apply to the thousands of expedite and long-haul drivers who quit their jobs every year due to being away from their families for weeks at a time, in many cases making the same income paid to employees at Home Depot? These are people who in most instances are very accomplished at their jobs but consider their marriage and their children more important.
I just love it when people express their compassion for kids and animals on the one hand and their HATE for politics (gay rights not political?) and for a politician about whose personal life they admittedly know very little. Just consider for a moment that Palin may have resigned her very public position because she wanted to spare her family from the constant and unscrupulous attacks on all of them from the mainstream media and her left-wing political enemies. At the time she had an infant with Down's Syndrome and a 6-year old; maybe she wanted to devote more time to them instead of turning them over to a nanny, and having tabloid reporters with telephoto lenses camped out around her house 24/7.
Last edited:
The answer to that question is no. Because no one has a problem with WHY she quit. The problem is with her rank hypocrisy. She called a press conference to make an announcement (mainly that she wasn't going to run for reelection), and gave a grandiose 18 minute speech, the first 11 minutes of which were about her love for Alaska and how she's not a quitter, that shes's never quit anything in her life (despite the fact that every previous job she's ever had she quit before her contract was up or before her term in office expired), and then announced that she's not only not seeking reelection for governor, but that she was quitting as the current governor with 18 months left in her term. If she had just given her reasons for quitting, all of which are perfectly viable and reasonable, and then quit, she wouldn't have instantly transformed herself into a caricature of a buffoon dripping with hypocrisy.
Pilgrim: if Palin wanted to devote more time to her family, and not expose them to the merciless glare of the media, she wouldn't have accepted McCain's offer to run for VP. Her resignation as Governor was after that campaign ended, but her deliberate efforts to remain in the "news" did not. By a very long shot, in fact. If there were an illustration for the term 'media *****', she'd be a good contender - so, no, I don't believe she quit in the middle of her term to shield her family.
Comparing the resignation of a public official who took an oath of office when being sworn in to truck drivers quitting is just ludicrous.
Comparing the resignation of a public official who took an oath of office when being sworn in to truck drivers quitting is just ludicrous.
It had a lot to do with the frivolous lawsuits/complaints against her and the large amount of money needed to defend against it. The time and resources that her administration had to use were also major factors in resigning.
Sarah Palin Resignation Speech: FULL VIDEO, TEXT
You seem to think the resignation of a public official is something unusual or disgraceful. Guess what - it happens all the time. They take an oath of office, drivers sign contracts. Both have an agreement that's considered binding, until one of the parties involved decides it's not.
You can keep repeating it but it's not gonna get any less ludicrous. Your comparison was a straw man in the first place - people don't get mad a truck drivers when they quit to spend more time with family therefore people shouldn't get mad at Palin for quitting for the same reasons. You think people are upset with Palin BECAUSE of WHY she quit. They're not. Nor are they mad a truckers for the same reason. They're mad at Palin because she said, in effect, "I'm not a quitter, never have been, therefore I quit." The "due to" reasons why don't matter.
BUT when truckers quit...they do not go on a big tour to make themselves out to be the next Jesus Christ...this woman is everywhere...
she should be up in AK taking care of that family then...that husband does not seem to do much..cant he take care of the house..while she at least finishes what she signed up for???
..but she sure has not gone away..it is obvious the Governorship was in her way of making TV shows and book deals and making a shiz load of money..
Then mocks the President on his job performance...right or wrong..Obama has not quit..he took on job..he will follow it thru...not quit ..she can NOT comment on anybody's job performance..
Last edited:
Ever want the answer to anything...follow the $$$$
Sarah Palin? Try Sarah Pay-lin! Ex-Alaska gov rakes in $12M since leaving office
"That's almost 100 times the $125,000 per year she was pulling down as governor of Alaska, a job she quit last summer by saying she didn't want to become "a lame duck."
Sarah Palin quits gov post; makes $12M as private citizen - NY Daily News
Sarah Palin? Try Sarah Pay-lin! Ex-Alaska gov rakes in $12M since leaving office
"That's almost 100 times the $125,000 per year she was pulling down as governor of Alaska, a job she quit last summer by saying she didn't want to become "a lame duck."
Sarah Palin quits gov post; makes $12M as private citizen - NY Daily News
You said it. Follow the money. Obama had to QUIT being a senator once he became President. You could say it was a fine business decision.
Barack Obama?s Net Worth Has Risen 438% Since Running for President
Yup....follow the $$ ..it will give you the answers to anything..
Well giving up your Senators seat to be President. ..is a bit more respectable than just flat out giving up on your state to write books and go on a speaking tour...but maybe I am wrong?
Last edited:
I don't have a problem with someone making money. More power to them. I don't even have a problem with someone quitting a job so they can do something else that makes them more money than the job they just quit.
My problem with her is that she stood there and said she's never quit at anything (a lie) and that she's not a quitter (a lie) and despite her not being a quitter she is quitting. The WHY is irrelevant at that point. If she'd had just announced that she was quitting for family reasons or for monetary reason, that's fine, but she put all of into the context of her not being a quitter. The hypocrisy of that is almost overwhelming.
Hypocrisy is the bread and butter of conservatives in general, but the Religious Right Republicans in particular, and nothing ****es them off more than being called on it. That's hilarious.
...
Lest I leave someone out, it's also hilarious when liberals display hypocrisy and then get mad when they're called on it, because they don't just get mad, they just lose it, often in typical child-like temper tantrum fashion (which is to be expected considering the similarities between the mindset of children and the mindset of liberals).
My problem with her is that she stood there and said she's never quit at anything (a lie) and that she's not a quitter (a lie) and despite her not being a quitter she is quitting. The WHY is irrelevant at that point. If she'd had just announced that she was quitting for family reasons or for monetary reason, that's fine, but she put all of into the context of her not being a quitter. The hypocrisy of that is almost overwhelming.
Hypocrisy is the bread and butter of conservatives in general, but the Religious Right Republicans in particular, and nothing ****es them off more than being called on it. That's hilarious.
...
Lest I leave someone out, it's also hilarious when liberals display hypocrisy and then get mad when they're called on it, because they don't just get mad, they just lose it, often in typical child-like temper tantrum fashion (which is to be expected considering the similarities between the mindset of children and the mindset of liberals).