I think you should reread what my point was. It is the LEFTS smear jobbers that are implying that Palin has too many problems to run for VP. I'm pointing out that Obama has 2 young kids and nobody seems concerned that they will be raised well with him as President.

I'm also of the opinion that a pregant daughter should not be discussed by the media but if anything ti shows Palin comes from a real family facing real problems. She has a working class union worker husband, 5 kids, and knows what it is like to pay bills and raise a real family.

I totally understood your point. My comments were directed at Just a Bubba.

Aww. Isn't that cute. Citizens on the right and left will ask Palin how she can be a mother and an ambitious politician. They don't ask the men that--which is why feminism is still a relevant topic.

Palin's politics, her abuse of power as Governor, her own words and actions will sink her. No smear necessary.


She can be a strong working mother and still not be a feminist. Her politics would limit other women's choices.

catz you mention Focus on the Family. They endorse your candidate. How does it feel to be in bed with them politically?

While an unknown quantity to many Americans, Palin has been on Focus on the Family's radar since at least 2006.

Kevin Clarkson, an Anchorage attorney who does work for the Alliance Defense Fund — loosely linked to Focus on the Family, knew of Palin's work dating back to 1998 when she supported Alaska's ballot measure outlawing gay marriage.

Focus Action, the political arm of Focus on the Family, helped on that campaign — though Palin at the time was mayor of Wasilla and may have only inadvertantly crossed paths with the group.

According to a recent Time magazine story, Palin turned the 1996 mayoral race into a partisan affair — injecting issues like abortion into the race.

But it was when she beat Republican Gov. Frank Murkowski in the 2006 primary that Clarkson got a call from Focus on the Family asking him questions about the strength of her social conservative credentials.

"There had been some entries made under her name in Wikipedia that were of concern to them (Focus on the Family)," Clarkson said. "The main one cited in Wikipedia was her veto of a bill that would've limited marriage benefits to married couples."

Clarkson explained that it was a convoluted process that led to the veto. Acting as legal counsel, Clarkson advised Palin to veto the bill that he said, because of confusing legislative machinations and existing court challenges, would've had the opposite effect and locked in benefits for all couples.

Clarkson said he had to explain the whole decision to Focus on the Family to put minds at ease.

"She is on the conservative side of all issues," Clarkson said. "She is in favor of marriage being defined as between a man and a woman and she is pro-life. There is no doubt about it."
http://www.rockymountainnews.com/new...-focus-family/

IT shows me that they are less conservative about working moms than many supposed pro-choice groups. How does it feel to stand to the right of FotF on the issue of working moms? It feels about THAT weird for me.

By the way, you made the claim that no one had investigated the links on Angel's article. I did, and I posted the information on the site that directly CONTRADICTS what Angel said about it. Did you bother to click on them? Or, are you too busy engaging in logical fallacies (in this case, a relevance fallacy)?

You make claims that are clearly false (in this case, that no one had investigated the links) and then walk away from your lies. That's an interesting way to debate.

For the record, it is irrelevant to my stance that FotF supports Palin. I can't control what FotF does, nor does their endorsement matter to me. Just as, I'm sure, it's irrelevant to your support of Barak Obama that many radical muslims back him. Including those who would happily kill gays and lesbians. How exactly does it feel to be supporting the same candidate as those who would like to kill you?

And, on the other hand, the leaders of Iran, Hamas, and Hezbollah have expressed their support for Obama (makes you wonder where that $3M in foreign money came from, doesn't it?), how does it feel to be in bed with them, politically?

__________________
Government does not solve problems; it subsidizes them.

---- Ronald Reagan

Enjoy it. Your politics are as right wing as they come. Enjoy participating in politics to the right of Focus of the Family's dominionism.

What happened? Were you born again?

Over the past few days, I've done reporting on Sarah Palin's extensive dominionist connections--including the attempt to run her as a "stealth" dominionist candidate and her connections to some scary dominionist groups including not just "Joel's Army" folks but a far-right Christian Reconstructionist political party linked to domestic terrorism.

As bad as all this--and the scandals regarding her misrule in both Wasilla and as state governor--are, there's apparently still more.

Today, we find that part of those funding scandals include the tax money of Alaskans used to pay for youth programs at Juneau Christian Center. We also reveal info regarding a particularly disturbing Assemblies frontgroup Palin recently did a talk at, and we go into researching the dominionist connections of her most recent church--Wasilla Bible Church.

Your tax dollars, going to support dominionism for kids

In another example of what appears to be some extensive whitewashing at almost all of Palin's former and present churches, there were some very interesting links removed from JCC's site regarding an interesting bit of largesse by Sarah Palin to the church.

Fortunately, an astute blogger happened to archive the material, which included not only documentation of a $25,000 grant to JCC's "The Hub" from Palin's administration, but also a request for $100,000 total in state and federal funding and pictures of Palin actually being at the opening of "The Hub" (which have since been scrubbed from her website).

And all is definitely not as it seems with "The Hub".

"The Hub" is essentially a frontgroup run by JCC for recruitment of future members--much of its activities focus on recruiting kids. The page itself begins with the phrase "Destiny Has Begun!"--a codephrase commonly used in "Joel's Army" circles to denote the "generation of destiny" (the new rebranding of "Joel's Army" borrowed from an Assemblies-linked church in New Zealand, now that the press is starting to catch onto the "Joel's Army" branding). "Destiny" in and of itself is a favourite codephrase in these circles--in "Joel's Army" theology, people are "destined" to inherit all manner of wealth and take over the planet and whatnot.
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2008/9...937/415/586412

It's painfully clear that this exposes McCain's judgment for what it is - a steaming pile. It's equally clear that Palin doesn't belong on the national scene due to numerous professional problems and an outstanding knack for lying. But we should be able to argue this without her daugter in the mix, and without namecalling ("wench"?).

__________________
Viator
Pro Deus Et Patria - For God & Country

You are quoting the Daily Kos as if it's a reputable source? Interesting what you think qualifies as a legitimate source of information.

By the way, the entire post above is all ad hominem and false. I'm going to do us both a favor and ignore it.

How does it feel to be a poster who doesn't know how to handle evidence, do research, and who knowingly posts lies about other posters?

Enjoy.

I'm amazed at the concern about McCain's judgment .... he took five months to make his choice, he narrowed the field down to two, he had a last stage interview with each candidate, and made his selection. Then, he waited until the last minute, to make sure no more negative information was forthcoming, to announce his decision. Sounds pretty logical to me.

Your accusations against Ms Palin are, frankly, ridiculous. You do not have "numerous professional problems", but rather, a series of relatively unsubstantiated hit pieces, coupled with unproven charges to try to shore up a very weak argument. And, of course, the "lying" accusation doesn't even deserve a response.

__________________
Government does not solve problems; it subsidizes them.

---- Ronald Reagan

IT shows me that they are less conservative about working moms than many supposed pro-choice groups. How does it feel to stand to the right of FotF on the issue of working moms?

By the way, you made the claim that no one had investigated the links on Angel's article. I did, and I posted the information on the site that directly CONTRADICTS what Angel said about it. Did you bother to click on them? Or, are you too busy engaging in logical fallacies (in this case, a relevance fallacy)?

You make claims that are clearly false (in this case, that no one had investigated the links) and then walk away from your lies. That's an interesting way to debate.

For the record, it is irrelevant to my stance that FotF supports Palin. I can't control what FotF does, nor does their endorsement matter to me. Just as, I'm sure, it's irrelevant to your support of Barak Obama that many radical muslims back him, including terror supporting groups like Hamas, and others who would happily kill gays and lesbians. How exactly does it feel to be supporting the same candidate as those who would like to kill you?