Originally Posted by catzmeow

I provided a link to the fact that the article is inaccurate, as well as text from the link. Spare refuted others. I can see you didn't bother to pay attention.

Let me help you again:

1) sloppy, haphazard vetting process - The article is dated September 1, and the information is outdated.

2) going "into seclusion" - link does not substantiate this claim, and in fact, repudiates the claim. Taking the case directly to voters does not equal seclusion.

3) some of the highest per capita earmarks funding - Clearly biased source that does not examine the commensurate Democratic positions.

4) predisposition to cancer - Some 90% of people in the U.S. aged 70+ will experience a melanoma. This does not equate to having a predisposition to cancer.

5) empty acceptance speech that nonetheless had the media swooning - Source does not say what is implied in this sentence.

6) She's a hard-bitten creationist - Source does not substantiate the claim.

7) an abortioNazi - Again, the source does not back up this claim. In fact, it primarily discusses the gas pipeline. It does rehash the now-tired rape in the case of your daughter discussion. Choosing life, in the scenario of YOUR DAUGHTER is different than being an abortinazi who wants to overturn Roe v. Wade. We've discussed this. Personal ethics versus seeking legal changes are two separate issues. If Palin is an abortinazi for saying she would PERSONALLY choose life for her and her family, then SO ARE YOU.

Iraq Oil invasion was "God's will." - Her actual quote:

That's what we have to make sure that we're praying for, that there is a plan and that plan is God's will."

This does not imply certainty. It implies hope that there IS a plan. What exactly do you hope for when you pray for peace?

I'm going to stop there out of boredom, but I can do more, if you'd like.

The article was NOT well-researched. It makes spurious claims that are unsupported by the links.

At least, I take time to read and carefully consider links. That makes one of us.

Originally Posted by catzmeow

Actually, THE ABOVE is a personal attack. My comments to angel attacked her incredibly sloppy and poorly researched post.

Do you have something to say about that article, and its links to nowhere? Or, did you even bother to click the links?

I strongly suspect that Angel's post was cut/pasted from elsewhere without a source. And, that Angel didn't bother to check the links, because if she/he had, he/she would not have posted the article. The links DO NOT SUBSTANTIATE the claims made.

Saying this is not ad hominem. It's being intellectually thorough.

But thanks for the incredibly substantive contribution here. I can see why you chose your avatar. It's truly representative of your posts.

Originally Posted by wind

Do the research and get back to me. The writer of this article has done his homework. The Kos article is full of links to sources which back the claims.

Originally Posted by Sparky Farkas

It represents the sum total of your attitude toward other people.

Originally Posted by wind

Good of you to pepper your OP with links to back up your claims. Funny, that your opponents won't address any of the content or look at the links.

We wouldn't want to have a debate or discussion on content of a post, which questions Palin's fitness to serve as VP, would we?

Your opponents did not put any links or back up with their claims.

Originally Posted by catzmeow

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.

Originally Posted by catzmeow

Just like attacking a woman's children demeans you more than it will ever demean her or bristol.

Originally Posted by Birdzeye

Do you seriously expect any intelligent feminist to support a woman who has shown she opposes reproductive freedom for woman and who has shown herself to be otherwise indifferent (at best) to the interests of the average woman? Now that's quite a sexist attitude you're showing there!

Originally Posted by catzmeow

Do You Seriously Expect Any Baby Killing Feminist To Support A Woman Who Has Shown She Opposes baby Killing for Woman And Who Has Shown Herself To Be Otherwise Indifferent (at Best) To The Interests Of The Average Woman? There, that's better.

Originally Posted by Spare

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?