August 30, 2008

The wild speculation that Sarah Palin is not the real mother of the new baby she presents as her own.

Some people are shocked that a Daily Kos diarist, one "Inky 99," would air doubts about this.

ADDED: If you want to read the comments beyond the 200th, you need to click on "post a comment" -- at the bottom of the post page -- and then click on "newer." And you can still add new comments, but to see them, you'll have to take those extra steps.

309 comments:

«Oldest   ‹Older   201 – 309 of 309
Synova said...

You're right, Joan.

Night, all.

vbspurs said...

We're over 200...but Methadras, I guess you don't read my blog?? (:

How soon, if it hasn't happened already, will the leftist/liberal enviro-kook earth-firsters come out of the woodwork to criticize Sarah Baracuda for having 5 children and creating a carbon footprint crisis?

I quoted a BBC News commenter yesterday:

She's female; what else is there to say? Oh and she has added FIVE new carbon producers to the western world so just the right person to tackle the world population and global warming problem! -Mike

What else is there to say...

Merge Divide said...

synova,

What you are missing in your analysis is that I've taken exception to your characterization of my position. I never said an infant with Down's Syndrome is a "burden". That's just the emotionally-laden term you chose to attribute to my words.

What I said (now multiple times) is that raising a child with a disability requires another level of care that a parent must be very committed to in order to do it properly.

I didn't want to inject personal information into the discussion, but it may help you understand my position if I tell you that I was employed as an employment specialist for teens and adults with a variety of disabilities (including autism and Down's Syndrome). My views on this subject are the result of direct experience. I've seen many cases where parents absolved themselves of the responsibility of taking care of their children. In many incidences, these parents were simply overwhelmed by the requirements of child-rearing. Often they made self-serving decisions to pass off their kids on government-funded agencies. When they decided to bear these children, they had no idea what it would entail in terms of energy and focus. Often they chose to put their careers ahead of their children. It's a too-common story.

vbspurs said...

Night, Synova! Me too guys. Catch you tomorrow.

Check out a doozy of a video on Joe Biden over at my blog, if ya'll want a good night laugh.

Cheers,
Victoria

kent said...

"You have me on one point for sure... I do indeed honestly believe its preferable for children to be born without Down's Syndrome. If that makes me callous, so be it."

"Soulless," actually. Close, though.

Alan said...

Synova,

"Why is it so important to err on the side of abortion or euthanasia?"

I'd rather err on the side of individual liberty. Where individuals operating in their own, but legal interest are allowed to make life changing choices for themselves. That doesn't mean "right to life" organizations can't work privately to change hearts and minds about the sanctity of life. Just not through the strong arm of government.

The idea of limited government used to be a conservative ideal. But it's been replaced with excessive religiosity.

Merge Divide said...

Joan,

My wife and I are currently raising an 8-month old. We have no extended family to help us. Our baby is nursed. But this isn't your concern because I am not running for an office that would represent you.

Palin has put herself up for consideration to represent our nation. Who am I to make a judgment on her fitness for that role? I am an American citizen and voter.

I'm much more concerned about the effect her relationship to her family could have on the nation, than I am worried about how her parenting will affect her child.

peter hoh said...

Victoria, while I didn't say it, yesterday I thought that there was only one way to make this rumor uglier, and Kossites went there. Idiots.

You've done a good job refuting the rumor. Of course, I wish the McCain black lovechild smear had been as aggressively refuted when that first arose.

blake said...

The idea of limited government used to be a conservative ideal. But it's been replaced with excessive religiosity.

The idea of the merits of the individual used to be a liberal ideal. But it's been replaced with identity politics.

Having said that, I agree that it's a good idea to err on the side of individual liberty--but if there's an opposing view worthy of creating some tension, it's the idea of erring on the side of life.

I think it's a good tension, myself.

Revenant said...

What I said (now multiple times) is that raising a child with a disability requires another level of care that a parent must be very committed to in order to do it properly.

The Vice President of the United States earns $190,000 plus massive benefits, including access to the best health care in the world.

In exchange, she has the grueling job obligation of certifying the results of the 2012 election after other people do the work of counting the votes. Oh, and if a whole bunch of Democrats defect to the Republican side she might have to vote to break a tie.

This is the scenario you think is too stressful for the mother of a child with Down's Syndrome? Er... ok. Can you name an easier job with better benefits? The only thing that comes to mind is "being Paris Hilton", and I don't think that job is open at the moment.

blake said...

1jpb,

Good for Cole. The voice of reason. I've seen some other left-leaning sites making good points and warning off the sort of nonsense that's not only crazy but self-defeating.

And then the commenters go kooky--yes, just like happens on right-leaning sites.

Merge Divide said...

revenant,

I'm fairly certain that you've already figured this out, but I'll go ahead anyway...

This wouldn't be a major concern for me if I had confidence that McCain would be likely to live out a full term. Obviously I'm worried about Palin's ascension to the Oval Office.

Revenant said...

"You have me on one point for sure... I do indeed honestly believe its preferable for children to be born without Down's Syndrome. If that makes me callous, so be it."

Well no shit it's better to be born without Down's Syndrome. That's like saying it is better to not have cancer than to have it. The relevant question is whether you'd rather be dead than have it.

Joan said...

I'm much more concerned about the effect her relationship to her family could have on the nation, than I am worried about how her parenting will affect her child.

Funny, that's not what you've been saying here all night. You have to realize that you've been coming off here as arrogant and worse. Your work with disabled children predisposes you to assume that a Down's baby is going to be more work than any other, but there is no compelling reason to make that assumption.

Congrats on the baby, and I know how rough it is when you have no family around to help -- I have 3, and our closest family lives 2,500 miles away. You'll be amazed by how much of what you "know" at this point in your life you will un-learn in the next 10 or 15 years as you experience parenthood firsthand. Good luck.

LoafingOaf said...

I'm not sure why I'm supposed to care if someone with the screenname Inky something or other posts a smear about Palin that was not well received on DailyKos.

These sorts of insects are crawling beneath the rocks on both sides. Just last night I tuned into a wacko Christian radio program hosted by local nutcase Pastor Ernie Sanders where one of the topics was whether Obama was the anti-Christ. That's a bit more extreme than the right wingers I sometimes meet who are sure Obama is a "Manchurian candidate." Sure, Pastor Ernie Sanders doesn't have much of an audience (many of his callers call in from prison, which is why I find the show amusing). But then, what kind of following does "Inky99" have?

As for me, I was happy McCain picked an outsider and a fresh face. I felt he needed someone exciting, new and young. And I was very relieved he didn't go with Romney, who I think is a phoney and a bit of a jack-ass.

Does this make me more likely to vote for McCain? I dunno, but probably. As silly as this may sound, I teared up during Palin's speech accepting McCain's offer. So I guess I find her pretty likable on first reaction! But when Althouse first introduced her to us a few months back, it seemed like all the commenters here needed to know was that she was sexy, she wielded guns, she was pro-life, and she liked to hunt.

I'll have to wait till she's vetted by the media and then see how she handles the debates. So far she seems like she may turn out to be someone who can put McCain over the top, but that's only if she actually proves to be as good as people right now are merely PRAYING she is. The good news is that McCain is really going for it and this election is going to be exciting. I used to think he would turn out to be a boring old presidential candidate like Bob Dole and would go down fast. I was wrong about that. Even his advertisments are fun to watch.

The main thing I wonder is why McCain wasn't the GOP nominee in 2000 instead of Bush. Oh year, because Bush used smear tactics against him just as low as what Inky99 is posting.

Revenant said...

This wouldn't be a major concern for me if I had confidence that McCain would be likely to live out a full term.

Doctors have confidence he'll live out his term. If you don't, that's fine. Your irrational fears aren't particularly my problem.

Obviously I'm worried about Palin's ascension to the Oval Office.

No, you're not. You're worried Obama might lose the election. The Palin complaint is just today's excuse for expressing that worry.

LoafingOaf said...

People keep saying McCain might drop dead at any moment. I guess he's more likely because of his age. But he does have the best health care on earth here in the USA! And any of us can drop dead at any time, in case you didn't know. I'd bet on McCain making it into his 80s.

Revenant said...

The main thing I wonder is why McCain wasn't the GOP nominee in 2000 instead of Bush. Oh year, because Bush used smear tactics against him just as low as what Inky99 is posting.

Uh, no. Because Republicans liked McCain even less then than they do now. Just because Bush used nasty tactics on McCain doesn't mean McCain lost because of them. He never had a prayer in hell to begin with.

Alan said...

"And that leads me to consider that you are a one-issue voter."

I'm not. But the religious take over of the GOP is a major reason I left the Party. My frustration is compounded by the fact that practically every RW pundit promotes religiosity, even when they don't act religious.

I used to call myself a Goldwater conservative. But even that's changed. When my insurance company dropped my homeowner's policy after 20 years of making payments and without me ever filing a claim, it makes one cynical about politicians who talk about injecting more free market capitalism into the industry.

Here in Florida, the State set up a non-profit of last resort to take on the policies private companies won't write. So now the state gets to take on the more risky policies while the private companies get to ride the gravy train. I know the solution to this, but it won't be advanced by a Republican. The wrath of RW pundits would put a stop to that.

'06 will be the last time I voted a straight GOP ticket. The GOP had to lose control for me to finally shed myself of the aggravation. I was already pissed that I had to make sure I voted in the State primary to keep Randal Terry from taking over the State Senate seat for my area. He, BTW, was running as a true Reagan conservative. And I'm still sort of pissed I voted for Katherine Harris even though I told my friends to vote against her. Do you remember how she injected religion into her campaign?

It's not like I ever intended to vote for McCain this fall. But his choice for VP will make it a lot easier not to.

Joan said...

It's not like I ever intended to vote for McCain this fall. But his choice for VP will make it a lot easier not to.

So, Alan, you're expecting rainbows and unicorns and free candy under an Obama/Biden administration? Dude, you live in Florida, and you're not going to at least cast a meaningful vote against Obama? You're describing some very confused thinking here. At the very least, think of the impact of Obama appointments to the Supreme Court.

Revenant said...

I'm not. But the religious take over of the GOP is a major reason I left the Party.

What Republican Party positions changed after this "takeover" that caused you to leave the party? Abortion? The party has always been against it. Gay rights? Again, always against it. So where's the problem, exactly?

Here in Florida, the State set up a non-profit of last resort to take on the policies private companies won't write. So now the state gets to take on the more risky policies while the private companies get to ride the gravy train. I know the solution to this,

Yeah. The solution is called "don't buy a house someplace so risky that no sane person will insure it". Maybe you're confused about what Goldwater believed, but he never shared your opinion that other people are obligated to pay for the mistakes you made.

blake said...

When my insurance company dropped my homeowner's policy after 20 years of making payments and without me ever filing a claim, it makes one cynical about politicians who talk about injecting more free market capitalism into the industry.

Why? Insurance companies should be required to continue insuring you even when they've decided the risk isn't worth it any more?

Maybe that's an indication of something.

Alan said...

No Revenant, the solution is to kick the private companies out of Florida and let the state non-profit write all the policies. Why should private companies take all the gravy profit while the state takes on all the liability? But then that's the way Republican government works--socialize the risk but privatize the profit.

Revenant said...

No Revenant, the solution is to kick the private companies out of Florida and let the state non-profit write all the policies.

Because when you want policy premiums to drop, making sure that a monopoly has complete control of the market is the smart way to do that? Interesting belief.

Why should private companies take all the gravy profit while the state takes on all the liability?

They don't. All insurance policies have potential liability, and no policy has guaranteed liability. Insurance companies write policies for which they expect to have to pay out $X per year; they charge $Y/year for the policy, where Y is greater than X. The difference is profit. When someone has a house in a particularly dangerous area, the value of $X goes through the roof. This means they have exactly four choices:

(1): Jack your premium up through the roof. This is, in many locations, illegal.
(2): Refuse to write the policy
(3): Go bankrupt from all the money-losing policies you're writing
(4): Jack up the rates of all the other customers to cover the loss. Those customers then leave and buy cheaper policies from other companies. Even if the government could somehow prevent this it would amount to nothing more than forcibly taxing people in sensible houses to pay for people in risky houses. As one of the former group, I extend a hearty "fuck you" to anyone in the latter group who favors this approach; go move someplace smarter and get your hand out of my pocket.

So, unsurprisingly, companies pick option #2. Then the people who bought vulnerable houses smack in hurricane alley commence bitching, as if they had a God-given right to other people's money just because of the house they bought.

But then that's the way Republican government works--socialize the risk but privatize the profit.

You bought a house in an idiotic location and expect other people to pay for it. You're the one socializing risk for your own benefit. The insurance companies are just refusing to be your personal sugar daddy. That's why they're called "insurance companies", not "charities".

But I agree that you're a good fit for the Democratic Party. You've no sense of personal responsibility and a profound feeling of entitlement. That makes you exactly their sort of person.

Torn ligament said...

Merge Divide:

You have made the comments on this blog worth reading again. Glad you have the fortitude and I like the lack of emotion. Most who post a different opinion usually don’t stay once the name calling, smirking, and bullying begin. I hope you do. You’ve shaken the place up.

Roger J. said...

you folks are far too nice in dealing with that excreable merge divide--anyone who would make a down syndrome child a political football is a low life son of a bitch. Of course these are the same liberals who welcome a hurricane striking the US because it might disrupt a republican convention. What the fuck is the matter with these people--are they that sick? This is the face of the democratic party and modern liberalism. Makes me want to puke

Roger J. said...

trooper: good man, sir--my hat is off to you. Nothing more than a cyrus type pushing the most low life slur I have seen on the internet while donning the mantle of "political discourse." Of course Gov Palin set out to have a down syndrome child and not abort it so she could advance a political agenda--God save us from these slimeballs

vbspurs said...

Jim Howard linked and wrote:

Note that they are all filled out in her own hand.

Jim, you are a beauty! Thanks for the links on this very interesting topic to those of us seeking info on Palin.

Cheers,
Victoria

Linda said...

Look, I can understand this.

She is pregnant. Naturally, she doesn't mention it immediately, since it's always possible that she'll miscarry. Most women postpone public announcements until the danger period passes.

Her doctor says "get the test". She does, not expecting anything, but finds out that the child has Down's Syndrome.

Although she is committed to continuing the pregnancy, she has conflicting feelings. Because she wants to work out those feelings with her husband, she avoids talking about it. Rather than answering a lot of questions right then, she chooses to keep the information to herself. When she has dealt with her emotions, she will discuss it.

But now then. Right then, she wants to enjoy the pregnancy, without bringing anyone else in. No dumb questions by the media, no attention. She wants to be in a temporary "cocoon" - a place where she and her family can gather strength, and prepare for this special gift.

She also wants this time to think about what she'll say to the media. It's not like most of us in similar circumstances, who could admit to conflicting feelings. If she says something, that child will hear about it, you can count on it. She doesn't want any negative to affect her precious child.

I can understand it, because I am the parent of a child whose handicaps were evident at birth. I didn't have the advantage of knowing in advance, so I could prepare. It is a shock, and one that takes some adjustment. Even when you're totally committed to continuing your pregnancy, it takes a lot out of you. The last thing you need is dumb advice and stupid comments.

Now, think about the fact that during her turmoil, she continued to govern the state, without a lot of open emotional carrying on. Indeed, no one was saying, "what's wrong with Sarah? She's not herself."

THAT'S a potential president!

Roger J. said...

Linda--very well said

vbspurs said...

THAT'S a potential president!

Linda, awesome. I totally agree.

This is where the story is capable of taking off, though.

I think the "not her baby" part is criminally insane. I think a lot of Democrats are embarrassed by it, however.

If you read the Kostards, many even think it's a reverse Rove plot to discredit their site (I think they do that on their own daily, without outside help).

But then they'll start to go with the "facts" of the story.

Q: What was a mother who knew a Down Syndrome baby was due, travelling to a far away State, 1 month previous to her due date?

Q: Why did she give the speech anyway, though her amniotic fluid was seeping?

Q: Why did she insist on travelling back to Wassila, despite the medical centre not having a preemie unit?

All of these questions are primed to make the listener question her moral decency and judgement.

Let's put aside the problems some people have with her decision to even bear the child. Believe me, after reading these threads there, I've learned on Kos that when "pro-Choice" doesn't mean you let the woman decide, as their champions say they want to let women do.

It means that the only choice when a woman is faced with the NEED to abort, is abortion. Coming to the decision to let the child live was selfish, and even criminal to these people.

I can't give the answer to the questions I posed. Only Sarah Palin can do that.

But then, I don't think she has to.

In my mind, she is a tough woman, and already the mother of 4 children. She knew the score about giving birth. Moreover, she is a conscientious woman about her duties as Govenor, who furthermore leads an energetic, challengingly physical life in the rugged State of Alaska.

Let me give you an alternate scenario.

Let's pretend Obama surprised the world, and chose a Hispanic Govenor of an US State as running mate. The woman was the children of migrant workers, and her husband still picked tomatoes in the field, in their small business.

All the other circumstances of Trig's birth, including the day she went into labour, applies.

What would be the Democratic response?

She is a heroine!

Imagine, this woman whose grandmother had never had pre-natal care for any of HER children, and indeed, squatted in a furrow in the ground in a Mexican field, to give birth to her own children, had transmitted her tough genes to her granddaughter.

They know a thing or two about working through pain, these campesinas!

What a tremendous woman this is, what an inspirational figure to young girls everywhere, who have an example of both motherhood and responsible executive leadership before them.

You see.

It's all about spin.

Sarah Palin is a tough cookie, able to make a moral choice with her husband, because a Down Syndrome child is not a curse. It's just a child.

It's almost as if the other side cannot take all this heroism, without the blessing of being a Democratic woman, or a true minority worthy of their sympathies and/or excuses.

It's sad to witness this happening. But it's also disgusting.

Cheers,
Victoria

Meade said...

"Palin will make mistakes. The news media and the Obama researchers will find things to attack. But if she stays relaxed and continues to be authentically who she has been for 44 years, the country is going to love her, and they are very rapidly going to get disgusted with the cynical negative nastiness of politics as usual." -Newt Gingrich

vbspurs said...

authentically

This is her ace-in-the-hole.

She's the most authentic politician on the national stage in YEARS. She comes from the tradition of Harry Truman and Andrew Jackson -- outsiders in the most inside business in the world.

She's also from a background the Democrats compliment themselves of being cheerleaders of, on paper.

Turns out that it's nothing of the sort.

Whilst saying they are for union members, for the blue-collar, for the hard-working moms, everything Palin embodies -- they actually want leaders with that are Ivy Leaguers, those with fancy Business school degrees or Rhodes Scholarships, and the white-collar realities.

Is she a phoney working-class person like Barack Obama? No.

And I think that hurts people.

Americans will adore this woman. It remains to be seen if she will convince them she's ready to be VP, though.

mrs whatsit said...

Merge wrote:

Yes, I concede that point. However, I will insist that a four-month old infant with major disabilities requires far more care than school-aged children of "normal" developmental abilities. And I also insist that it is crucial for a mother to provide that care in early development. Is that not consistent with the "family values" line?

No, it's not, though it's perfectly consistent with sexism, which you have vividly displayed throughout this thread. Most "family values" people would certainly agree that a PARENT needs to provide that care in early development. This little boy has a father. It does not appear to have crossed your mind at any point that the baby's needs could possibly be met by his loving dad. Should Sarah Palin become VP, I highly doubt that her husband will stay in Alaska to keep working as a fisherman and in the oil fields while she moves to Washington. Duh, who do you suppose will focus on the kids?

It is a continual wonder to me how swiftly many of the political blabbers of the world will reverse themselves to occupy roles they'd otherwise pretend to revile the moment it's politically expedient.

vbspurs said...

Mrs Whatsit wrote:

It is a continual wonder to me how swiftly many of the political blabbers of the world will reverse themselves to occupy roles they'd otherwise pretend to revile the moment it's politically expedient.

When the history books are written, THIS above will be the epitaph given to the Presidential Campaign of the year 2008.

It's true of Hillary (sexism, misogyny). It's true of Barack Obama (racism, religious bigotry). It's true of Sarah Palin (sexism, classicism). It's true of Senator McCain (agism, classicism). Only Biden so far, has escaped.

2008 was the most rivetting political campaign ever in American history.

But it's also been absolutely brutal so far, on many more levels than 2004 was.

Roger J. said...

Linda and Victoria--I appreciate your views on this story--because, of course, you are women--I think this is the most dispicable thing I have ever seen. there are slurs and there are slurs--If some progressives wish to put this bullshit out, then you can only wonder that they are so blinded by partisan crap they would slur a mother with down syndrome child. Absolute disgusting--And the limits of the written word restrict my ability to tell you how I really feel.

Roger J. said...

OT: Victoria--sent you some pics of early miami to your website--hope you got them; if not, let me know

vbspurs said...

Rog, thank you so much! No, I haven't checked. I'm bad about that. :(

Did you send them to the "tips" one?

Thanks again for them, and for your kind word. Hey, guys' opinions on women's topics are valid too.

That's what I hate about modern feminism. They make it seem like men's opinions count for her, just because they lack a Gina.

vbspurs said...

Err. Correction:

That's what I hate about modern feminism. They make it seem like men's opinions count for LESS, just because they lack a Gina.

(Gina, a nod to "The 40-year-old Virgin")

Roger J. said...

Ms Victoria--sent them to your tips email. enjoy--as a sidebar several lurkers from Miami also asked me for them! I am so glad Algore invented this internet thing.

vbspurs said...

Roger, just checked. You are the BOMB! Thank you so much!!

Not only am I going to enjoy them as a resident, but remember I am a Historian. This is like pr0n for me, but in a nice, airbrushed Playboy way. ;))

THANK YOU!

Mortimer Brezny said...

Anyone whose vote they feel entitled to the vote of is singled out for particular abuse if they don't play a good little house n*****.

Playing the race card is totally unnecessary in this context, especially playing it so hard. Also, this kind of indignation is really reserved for actual, real-life black people.

vbspurs said...

Checking my email reminded me just now I left a lot of people hanging about the whole Sippi saga.

Guys, I'm so sorry. I'll get back to you about that. I am very indolent as a correspondent. :((

Roger J. said...

Victoria--YW--great place to grow up in.

downtownlad said...

It's no different than the speculation about Edwards and whether or not he fathered a love-child.

What's wrong with looking into this? Why was her daughter missing from school for months? Can we have a doctors note please? Let's do a blood test to confirm this.

Fen said...

I call troll on Merge and will not engage him again. He is engaging in creeping Cyrus Pinkertonism.

Echo. He's playing at Wormtongue. Look closely at his prose, you'll see it.

Fen said...

Mort: Also, this kind of indignation is really reserved for actual, real-life black people.

You trying to say that only black people have a right to express indignation about racism? Why? Because no one else is victimized by racism?

Dogwood said...

Palin's selection is having its intended effect. Politico reporting on how the GOP base is suddenly very energized.

Article here.

Highlights: McCain campaign raised 7 million in 24 hours.

Dobson is now openly supporting McCain.

NRA leadership excited.

Once reluctant fund rasiers stepping up to host events.

Etc., etc., etc.

EnigmatiCore said...

"You are going against conventional wisdom with this assertion."

I remember some trying to assert that Reagan had slipped by the end, but mostly that was coming from the type of people who would be on DailyKos if it was this day and age rather than back then.

EnigmatiCore said...

"It is my understanding that Palin's brother-in-law is alleged to have tasered his stepson and threatened to shoot Palin's father if he hired a divorce attorney for his daughter."

Neither of these are merely alleged. Both were proven true by a police investigation, which led to a five day suspension.

Insty linked to this which has a bevy of links to help put the timeline all in order.

One of the keys which gets obfuscated is that the reason Palin's hubby made his calls after she was elected governor is that he was ordered to do so by the head of the Governor's security detail, as a part of the normal routine when a new governor is elected.

But at the core of the matter, even in the very worst case regarding the circumstances, you would have a governor trying to get rid of a bad cop and the supervisor who protected him. I'd want a governor to do that. However, the circumstances do not even appear to be that. It looks like the supervisor, who had been hired by her, was fired by her over budgetary disputes.

EnigmatiCore said...

Alan,

You wrote "But he chose Palin because she's radically pro-life."

Can you detail what the difference is between being pro-life and radically pro-life?

And then detail why the latter fits Palin rather than the former?

Thanks in advance.

Oligonicella said...

Merge --

You do understand you're not Socrates, right? That method of discourse is used under the presumption that the questioner is the teacher and holds the correct answers.

Discourse amongst equals is an exchange of opinions, or, if questions are asked, a straightforward response. Something (having just read the thread top to bottom) I find a dearth of in your postings.

EnigmatiCore said...

"I'd have to assume that there are quite a few on this thread that would rather see my right to free speech curtailed."

Wishing you would go away or wishing you would stop trolling does not mean that one wishes your right to free speech to be curtailed.

Hell, even if someone wanted you banned from posting to this site, it would not imply they wanted your right to free speech curtailed.

EnigmatiCore said...

"There is not ONE person slamming Sarah Palin or her qualifications that:

1) is actually "undecided". These people are already decided against her.

2)would for a even a second talk the same talk if the Dem ticket had chosen the exact same person, as long as she was pro-choice."

Quite. In fact, unless they could point to themselves making the same 'experience' arguments against John Edwards (a one term Senator with no executive experience and no other government experience and no foreign policy experience) in 2004, then it would be fair for anyone to conclude:

1) They are so young that they weren't posting in 2004,

2) They are sexist, and the only reason they oppose Palin while not opposing Edwards is due to her being a woman,

3) They are partisan to the core, and the only reason they oppose Palin is due to her being a Republican, or

4) All of the above.

EnigmatiCore said...

"Playing the race card is totally unnecessary in this context, especially playing it so hard. Also, this kind of indignation is really reserved for actual, real-life black people"

Mort, I'll join you in part and dissent in part.

The race card was unnecessary in this context, and seeing it disgusted me (as it does whenever it is played).

However, I can't join you on the "reserved for" part. We all have the same rights, including the same rights of speech (including indignation).

EnigmatiCore said...

"It's no different than the speculation about Edwards and whether or not he fathered a love-child."

Uh, no. The speculation about Edwards started because it was true and people were able to observe the things that indicated it was true. All you had to do was read Mickey Kaus and you knew that it wasn't just made up by someone posting to a far-out weblog, but rather was known by reporters who had been following the Edwards campaign.

By the way, what do you think about the website Obama backers have put up saying that a vote for McCain-Palin is a vote for gay rights?

Ted said...

>So Palin really ought to be boning up on her
>prospective duties in the number 1 spot as well,
>because she is not what anyone could call especially
>well-informed when it comes to federal
>government (in fact she's never served in it).

Isn't this a property she shares (for better or worse) with 1976-Carter, 1980-Reagan, 1992-Bill Clinton and 2000-George W. Bush, just to pick four of the last five presidents we elected? (only George HW Bush came with prior federal experience).

Churchill said...

This is classic Dem. They love gays, but don't hesitate to use homophobic attacks when they present themselves. Some of them apparently think this is getting payback for Edwards.

And what if this is all true? How does it hurt her? Where is the hypocrisy they are rooting out? The Dems are attacking a woman - now a grandmother - for protecting her daughter the old-fashioned way. I'm not really seeing how this is going to hurt her. She already has more gravitas than Obama and I don't think there is a way to attack this that doesn't make Obama look small.

MathMom said...

It has been a while since I lived in Alaska, but my well-connected friend who was born there when it was still a territory, answered my email (yesterday) for information about Palin. Interestingly, she included this anecdote:

Her water broke at a Western Governors Conference where she had just presented a speech on opening ANWR. She called her State Trooper over and instructed him to get her on the first plane home and went to the hotel to clean up. Then she gathered her two staff members traveling with her, got to the airport, no labor yet, got on the plane and flew home. Labor started about two hours out of Anchorage. Palin alerted the pilot who called to have a Providence Medivac Helicopter waiting when the plane landed at 1:30 AM, the plane landed, stayed out on the runway, Palin was off loaded, Todd was in the helicopter, they raced to Valley Hospital and Trig was born at 6 AM. We all woke up with the news of the new Palin addition and the dramtic story. Then she came back to work 3 days later.

Oh, I know, you're going to say that they faked her delivery in the same warehouse where they faked the moon landings and the Superbowl, right?

Orion said...

Oh, it gets even better. I've found links by people mentioning they saw the Governor pregnant and the nutroots respond with, "You're lying!" or "It doesn't matter!", "That doesn't prove anything!", etc., etc.

On Demcoratic Underground a poster says flat-out that it doesn't matter if the charge is true or not, if they say it enough times it will cause enough doubt in voters' minds to cost McCain the election.

North Dallas Thirty said...

The problem with Sarah Palin, in the eyes of liberals and Democrats like Merge Divide, is that she does break the glass ceiling.

That is, the one that they've used to trap and manipulate millions of women into believing that they have to ignore their religious beliefs, that they have to support the abortion of children who are "imperfect" or "inconvenient", and that Republicans hate women and demand they remain barefoot, pregnant, and chained to a stove.

It's funny how Merge Divide and their ilk can get all upset over a baby like Trig being raised in a loving extended family with four siblings, a mom and dad, doting grandparents, and an extended network of friends and cousins.

Especially when they care nothing about and see no reason to condemn the "families" in their Democrat urban areas that consist of multiple half-siblings being raised by their elderly grandparents because their parents have run off, or when they're supporting gay and lesbian leftists who are demanding that the government recognize as married, quote, "households with multiple conjugal partners".

AlphaLiberal said...

This is first I heard of this rumor. It is all over the web and not just on lefty blogs. I've also seen it on conservative blogs saying, if true, is a big problem for conservatives.

It should be an easy matter to disprove this by showing a picture of the pregnant Governor. Governors are often photographed and a pregnancy is difficult to hide. esp on thin women.

So, how about folks drop the vindictiveness and simply post a picture of pregnant Palin?

I've actually spent 20 minutes looking for the photo and couldn't find it. I'd prefer this rumor evaporate!

(And to blame the rumor on Kos is a cheap shot, Ann. You feed the partisan fights with these tactics).

OldGrouchy said...

MD: Well, your speech will be muzzled when you're released from Gitmo, where all good Socialists are stored, after you recover from all that hideous torture currently done to all Bush dissenters.

Silly me, it's Potential President Obama, PBUH, who wants to shackle dissenting speech, which has not happened under President Bush.

Of course, since Obama, PBUH, would reinstate the "Fairness" Doctrine, this blog will disappear, along with all talk radio except for Air America and Al Franken.

chickenlittle said...

Just how many alpha liberals are there?

Up thread is one that posts in all small caps, i.e. "alphaliberal"

Several days ago it was "AlphaLiberal".

Yet there can only be one true liberal who is first and foremost.

j'accuse!

Randy said...

Then you didn't look too hard, AL. Vbspurs posted two of them upthread. Not that you really care, because toothless-but-rabid partisan that you are, you revel in the invasion the private lives of Republicans.

Alex said...

Merge - you stepped into a known big pile of moose shit and kept smearing it all over your body. Stop already.

AlphaLiberal said...

I prefer that libs focus on how Sarah Palin has already shown she can't handle the power of executive authority. Sara Palin has already bused the office of Governor by using it to fire the top cop who refused to fire her brother-in-law.

This is my conclusion based on the evidence Talking Points Memo has been chronicling of Palin power abuses for months now, and from other reports. The link has a nice summary of evidence and ethics.

Let's be clear: it is wrong to use governmental power to carry out a family vendetta. Sounds like brother-in-law was a jerk and tested her; and she failed the test.

Merge Divide said...

torn ligament,

I appreciate the kind words. I'm not the sort of individual to get dragged down into the mire of vitriol. The kind of name-calling and rejection of honest dialog here is perfectly understandable from a group of people who aren't used to being in any forum where they will actually have their views challenged in a substantial way. I see beyond the invective. The fact that they feel compelled to respond at all makes their attempted dismissals ironic.

Merge Divide said...

rojer,

When you are through with your sanctimony, you might want to read what I've said regarding the McCain campaign's willingness to use the Palin child as a symbol of her pro-life commitment. You don't even have to step out of your comfort zone- it's right here in the thread.

Merge Divide said...

vb spurs wrote...

"She's the most authentic politician on the national stage in YEARS. She comes from the tradition of Harry Truman and Andrew Jackson -- outsiders in the most inside business in the world."

Yes, she is so authentic an outsider that she was clear in her contention that she needed to assess what she could contribute to Alaska if she accepted the VP position.

She has so much authenticity that she had no difficulty stopping the construction of the Gravina Bridge after it became a national scandal.

She has so much integrity that, despite her support for the project when federal funds were rolling in, she reversed herself when it got bad press, and had the moral fortitude to keep the unspent federal funds.

And she has such political independence that she found it within herself, after what she had just done, to claim that Alaska shouldn't be relying on federal funds. And then she offered the money for the Bridge back to her people in the form of tax breaks on gasoline and energy. Wow... she's going to be great for this nation. She's into wealth redistribution. From taxpayer hands nationwide, directly to her constituents.

Merge Divide said...

mrs. whatsit,

And it is a continual wonder to me how quick people are willing to project their preconceptions on someone whom they disagree with. You're assuming I am some sort of avowed "feminist", when I've never claimed to be so. Instead of trying to form a political profile for me in your head, if you have any questions... I've shown consistently in this thread that I am willing to answer them.

Merge Divide said...

oligonicella,

You might have a point if I weren't consistently addressing questions asked of me in this forum. If you are not finding the answers you want, you can either supply themselves ahead of time, speculate as to what I would answer and simply project your guesses on to me, (as a few posters have chosen to do), or refine your question.

Merge Divide said...

Ted wrote...

"Isn't this a property she shares (for better or worse) with 1976-Carter, 1980-Reagan, 1992-Bill Clinton and 2000-George W. Bush, just to pick four of the last five presidents we elected? (only George HW Bush came with prior federal experience)."

Yes indeed. Note that none of them had a four-year-old infant with Down's Syndrome to take care of, and they all had extensive education from prestigious schools and/or advanced degrees... except for Reagan (of course you can follow the logic there).

Lawgiver said...

And it is a continual wonder to me how quick people are willing to project their preconceptions on someone whom they disagree with.

You don't know much about human nature do you.

What a hoot!

Merge Divide said...

north dallas forty,

Nice attempt to tar me with a broad brush... "liberals and democrats like Merge Divide"... that's humorous. I'm sure you can come up with a better line of argument than overgeneralized stereotyping of an internet poster who disagrees with you. There's no need to author beliefs and attribute them to me... there is plenty of opportunity to simply cut-and-paste words that I actually wrote here.

Lawgiver said...

And she has such political independence that she found it within herself, after what she had just done, to claim that Alaska shouldn't be relying on federal funds. And then she offered the money for the Bridge back to her people in the form of tax breaks on gasoline and energy.

You don't know much about Alaska or how earmarks work either do you?

Lawgiver said...

I'm much more concerned about the effect her relationship to her family could have on the nation, than I am worried about how her parenting will affect her child.

Do you actually believe the shit you post?

Merge Divide said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Merge Divide said...

Do you have an actual question, or are you just going to continue to try to discredit my comments with ad hominem attacks?

Lawgiver said...

No questions here, it's just fun watching an elitist know-nothing try to defend the indefensible.

Merge Divide said...

Yes, I totally agree. That's why Willliam F. Buckley, Jr. was such a hit, wasn't it?

Roger J. said...

merege: what part of "fuck you' do you not understand--no sanctimony here, just pure loathing. let us agree not to address us any more, OK? you post all you want. We can quite safely ignore each other.

peter hoh said...

Over at Gruntled, there's a hint that the speculation about Bristol having given birth to Trig may be completely blown out of the water.

Kirk Parker said...

Nichevo,

"you can't paint a turd"

I think there's a fairly large collection of modern "artists" who would disagree with you.

M.D.,

"I believe that several of the people chiming in at this late hour would genuinely like to see my free speech curtailed (not just on this site). It's evident from their tone and the unwillingness to engage in a discussion unfettered by personal animosity and put-downs."

Go ahead and name names.

Nichevo said...

And since when did "shut up" become off limits in either polite or political discussion? I wasn't aware it was evil to either think or say, though it is unfashionable ;>.

And man up and grow some skin, huey! You must have been a soccer player who specialized in penalty flops. Passive-aggressive, like I said. You claim to respond to arguments. Your response is hurt feelings and a cloud of ink - "That's great. Thank you."

Your net value to the participants is either zero or negative. It is a nuisance value.

If I every take a blog seriously, I will ban or suspend right and left among those who bore me.

You are becoming a bore. Ann is too big to notice you, good for her, bad for us. She rarely or never kicks wights like you. It feeds the fire. Free speech and all that.

I call a spade a spade, on the Internet at least. If a 119-year-old Adolf Hitler appeared in front of me in Times Square and I yelled for a cop and the cop asked me what I wanted and I said "It's Hitler! He's a fucking Nazi war criminal, arrest him!" would I be lying? Would I be ad hom-ing? Would I be causing a panic or inciting a riot? Would I have invoked Godwin's Law? ;>"

So, if I see a turd painted arguendo on this board, I tend to look at it a moment, but I would hesitate to step on it, and I certainly wouldn't get any closer to it than that. There is an Irish/Polish/whatever ethnic joke about this which I will not now relate, but who should we wallow around in your muck? Having smelled it must we rub it in our fingers?

You're not very good. You're not sharpening us except I suppose as a conduit of talking points, and you are neither entertaining nor informative.

SRSLY, what's in it for us to encourage you to stink up the joint? You pay us monies?

So the thought of a Cleanup on Aisle merge divide" doesn't appall. If not, not, you haven't pushed her buttons (keep trying!) hard enough.

But nobody's going to hang you up on a meathook IRL, not even me. Let's not get above ourselves.

Das ist klar, Herr Kommisar?

Nichevo said...

Oh, kirk - lol. I stick to Old Masters, they appreciate better over time than old mistresses.

mrs whatsit said...

Instead of trying to form a political profile for me in your head, if you have any questions... I've shown consistently in this thread that I am willing to answer them.

OK. You avoided answering the question that was implied in my first post to you, so this time I'll make it explicit. Why do you talk about Palin's responsibility to her baby as though she were a single mom? Why do you leave her husband out of your calculations? Do you truly believe that men can't take care of babies as well as women can, or is it just more politically convenient for you to airbrush him out of your opinions?

Merge Divide said...

nichevo,

"Shut up" is still a strategy employed quite often when someone in a political discussion has no other appropriate answer. But I don't see why you'd be proud of yourself for using the tactic.

What's with the "man up" stuff? Now you are calling out my masculinity? I haven't complained about "hurt feelings", as you put it. If I had a problem dealing with the negativity, I could have left long ago. It's like you are aching to see me become aggressive and start attacking people, rather than issues. That's not my style on the internet.

You're not the first to question the value of my posts in this thread- yet you (like others) can't keep yourselves from continuing to read and respond to my posts. That's your own issue to work through.

Your policy of suspending those who disagree with you should make for a dynamic political forum, should you ever extend the effort.

You're now evoking the spirit of Hitler to make a point about an series of internet posts that you find objectionable? I think that shows a distinct inability to understand proportionality. Why don't you resist your urge to stifle yourself, and go ahead with the ethnic humor you seem so anxious to share.

Merge Divide said...

mrs whatsit,

Yes, I do indeed believe that mothers can offer something to their infants that a husband can't. Consult a medical textbook if you are still confused.

That's not to disparage the role a father plays- that's merely your projection.

Merge Divide said...

mrs, whatsit,

Since you bring up the issue of a man's ability to do everything a mother can for her infant, the onus is on you to show me a credible study that refutes my claim that the ideal parenting situation is breast feeding. It has to do with more than simply nutrition and the transmission of immunities. There's a crucial social component as well.

Explain to me how the ideal situation for the Palin infant is to be crated around with his mother while she's campaigning.

Ms. Palin already made the choice to birth her child regardless of the deficits he's been born with. I'm not going to judge the morality of that decision. But to choose not to give this baby every advantage she can, now that he is in her hand's (rather than God's), is not admirable- no matter how you choose to spin it.

mrs whatsit said...

Well, that answers my question. Who says she isn't breast-feeding? Only you, and what do you know about it? Not a blessed thing, apparently. For all we know she has breast-fed that baby until today -- and if today is the day she weans him, at five months, he's had most, if not all, of the advantages science says breast-feeding will give him. (Some Down's kids can't breast-feed, anyway, though you may not realize that. The sucking can be problematic, whether the mother stays at home or runs a government.)

As for the rest of it, my whole point -- which you have entirely ignored -- is that there is no reason for her to "crate" the baby and cart it along with her. The baby has a dad. And if she does take him along, he won't be harmed. I raised three kids. Until they crawl and walk, you can pretty much take them anywhere, with no problems. The baby doesn't care, as long as he's with you. After they're mobile you have a couple of years where they need to be home, no question about that -- but Trig won't reach that point until well after November, when the family will certainly be situated in one place or the other.

In any case, you've made it clear. You think that being raised, for part of Trig's infancy, by his Dad instead of his Mom, would be a disadvantage. Your point is understood -- but not respected.

Merge Divide said...

Well, folks... it looks like all this talk might turn out to be moot. The sheen on Ms. Palin looks to have been extraordinarily thin. The media is abuzz with disclosure.

Some are reporting that John McCain wasn't even given the final choice for his running mate, and that there is a distinct lack of chemistry between them. He is said to be pissed that she wasn't vetted properly. Tim Pawlenty is also reportedly irate at how things went down.

It's also being reported that Palin's own mother-in-law is still thinking about voting for the Obama ticket.

And finally, as more attention is being paid to poor Trig's birth, Palin's credibility is sinking into the toilet. The details of her own reports of delivery are absolutely horrific and reflect (as I've been writing all along) that Palin is less concerned about her child than her career.

That is... unless Trig is indeed her daughter's son, and then we have a credibility problem of an entirely different magnitude.

Maybe we have another Harriet Meiers situation here?

mrs whatsit said...

MD: your desperation is showing. When the hangover wears off and you reread what you've written here, you'll cringe -- and you'll deserve to.

Merge Divide said...

mrs. whatsit,

Actually, I'd be more than happy to discover that Ms. Palin is not Trig's mother and that she is not guilty of the type of foolhardy neglect that characterizes her own account of the delivery. But you guys have already discounted that possibility.

mrs whatsit said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Merge Divide said...

mrs. whatsit,

Yet another poster who bows out of adult discussion on a note of vitriol, personal insult, and name-calling. Thanks for participating.

OldGrouchy said...

Dear MD: You've again demonstrated your lack of knowledge, intelligence, and awareness many times on this posting. Perhaps it's the water you're drinking or perhaps it's the Socialist manifestos you've been browsing because it's most apparent you can't read diddly.

You've also shown why Air America could not make it; you're certainly at about the same low level as Al Franken. Now, crawl away into the slime you call home and breed no more.

mrs whatsit said...

merge: and yet another poster who bows out of the discussion without ever addressing the questions you pretended to promise you were ready to answer. Had you taken them on directly, we might have been able to talk. It was your choice to turn the conversation into an attack on a woman who dared to behave as if a man might back her up. Not mine.

Merge Divide said...

mrs. whatsit,

Now hold on there... you are the one that proclaimed that our discussion was over (after flinging profanity at me). I would be more than happy to continue this discussion until you are satisfied that you have received the answers to your questions.

There was no need for you to resort to personal insult. You say that I turned the conversation into and"attack on a woman who dared to behave as if a man might back her up." But of course that's how you'd frame the issue. You are trying to impugn my approach to being a father, so as to deflect the conversation from Ms. Palin, whom you are strenuously trying to defend. The thing is that my parenting skills are not up for debate here. We are talking about a woman who would like to put herself in direct line for the presidency. You went out of bounds by trying to make this personal.

Nichevo said...

md,

MENE, MENE, TEKEL.

Waiting for PERES, Ann.

mrs whatsit said...

MD, I regret the obscenity -- I was following the other discussion about the rumor regarding Palin's pregnancy at the same time, and it outraged me to the point where I lost perspective and misdirected some fury at you. I'm going to delete the comment with the obscenity in it, if I can, for that reason. However, I stand by everything else I said.

You started off by suggesting that Palin could not run for VP while also meeting her baby's special needs as a Down's child -- NOT the ordinary needs of any baby, e.g. to be breastfed. For example, here:
"I will insist that a four-month old infant with major disabilities requires far more care than school-aged children of "normal" developmental abilities. And I also insist that it is crucial for a mother to provide that care in early development."

Responding to that statement, I challenged you to explain what aspects of the ADDITIONAL care a baby with developmental disabilities could not be provided by the baby's father. You did not do that, and never have. Instead, you have posted over and over again about female anatomy and breast-feeding, insulted me by telling me I should look up the anatomical differences between men and women in a medical textbook if I didn't understand them, etcetera. You never offered a shred of reasonable argument as to why, exactly, Palin rather than her husband must be the one to do the extra work her baby's special needs will require -- which is what you started off by asserting.

None of my kids, fortunately, had major disabilities, but I worked for years with severely disabled kids, and several close friends have raised kids with autism, genetic abnormalities, and other overwhelming issues. I do have a clear sense of what's involved -- PT, OT, endless medical appointments with endless specialists, lots and lots of sitting on the floor with your child and playing with purpose, patience, love, determination, energy, and more. It's tough, you bet. But it's nothing a man can't do. Almost none of it requires breasts. That's all I was asking you to acknowledge, and I can't think of a reason, other than 1) sexism or 2) irrational partisanship, that would drive you to work so hard to avoid it.

Merge Divide said...

Nichevo,

Yeah... right. What are you trying to tell me with your deliberately obscured utterings?

...that you're a Zionist?

...that you're a millenarian?

...that you're a Talmudic scholar?

Merge Divide said...

mrswhatsit,

I did communicate my feelings about the equality of a father in parenting. I never said that there hasn't ever been an effective and loving single father. But it's clear to me that there is simply something unique and irreplaceable about the bond between mother and child. If you think that's sexist, so be it. But don't assume you know anything about my situation at home. That's not for this board. I'm not interrogating you about your home-life. Nor am I seeking to pronounce judgment on you, as you have me. I realize that all I know about you is what you select to write here.

I've been clear about my position. Palin has used her status as a mother of a Down's Syndrome Baby as a political symbol. And now she's passing off the responsibility on to someone else (her husband, extended family, etc.). That's her choice. But since she's used it (the issue) for her public profile, she's made it fair game.

As far as the rumors of maternity are concerned, I haven't drawn any firm conclusions nor have I pretended to. Don't conflate that issue with what I'm saying.

But I stand by what I said. For the good of that kid- I hope the rumors are true. Because if they aren't, Ms. Palin knowingly jeopardized her son's life to deliver a speech, and then flew eight + hours home under the worst possible conditions. What kind of respect for life is that? And now she has prioritized her ambition over her relationship with her son. And you defend that?

Believe me, when my wife and I decided to have a son, I realized the commitment I was making. Even though we were able to have my wife stay at home for eight months with our normally-developed child- there's no way in the world anyone could have convinced me to accept a job change that would uproot my family and take away the opportunity to spend time with my son at the most crucial stage of his development. That's simply insane, and reveals her essentially distorted values and priorities.

mrs whatsit said...

I didn't mean to conflate the pregnancy flap with the discussion you and I have been having. That was my explanation and apology for being ruder to you than I ordinarily manage to be in Internet discussion -- I was angry at others, not you, and misdirected some of it at you. As for slurs against your parenting, I think if you had avoided some of the slurs you tossed at me, I might have done a better job hanging onto my temper. When a man says somemthing like "look it up in a medical textbook if you're not clear" on female anatomy to a woman who's given birth to, breastfed, and successfully raised three kids, she does tend to get a tad ticked off. If it's off-limits for you, it should have been off-limits for me, too.

As for the rest, I've heard no responsible medical opinion that there's anything medically dangerous about flying at eight months. It does not trigger premature labor, regardless of what you may be hearing from the mouth-foamers. It does place the mother at risk of delivering far from home, which many of us would obviously prefer not to do -- but Palin made it home in time, and there is no evidence that any harm resulted to anybody. The baby had Downs already, as I'm sure you do realize. Unfortunately, I'm not sure everybody else who's flinging this particular canard around does fully understand that.

I certainly do not agree that she has "prioritized her ambition over her relationship with her son." You've got no evidence for that. If she's VP by this time next year I'll bet she won't be working nearly as hard as she has been as governor. Frankly, it's a much, much easier job. And she was already Governor when she became pregnant with the boy. Should she have aborted him? Stepped down???

Finally, of course I agree that the bond between mother and child is irreplaceable, but that has nothing to do with the question I asked you -- which you still have never answered. I happen to feel that the bond between FATHER and child is also irreplaceable and that dads and babies lose out enormously from the commonly-held belief that only mothers can do many of the things that aren't related to anatomy and that dads, when tested, find out that they can do too.

Finally, congratulations on your child and on your commitment. When my first child was born, a friend told us that parenthood would bring us the lowest lows and the highest highs, and that has proven to be true. Fortunately, so far, there have been far more highs than lows for us. May the same be true for you.

Merge Divide said...

mrs whatsit,

I don't know whether or not you are trying for an apology here, but I resent your claim that I directed a personal slur against you. You asked me "Do you truly believe that men can't take care of babies as well as women can, or is it just more politically convenient for you to airbrush him out of your opinions?"

To me the answer was quite obvious. My suggestion to "look it up" was meant to underscore that. It may have been a snide way for me to deliver a message, but to suggest that it constitutes a personal slur equal to you implying I'm a bad father is both patently ridiculous and extremely offensive. Try turning it around and consider if I called you a bad mother based solely on my interpretation of your opinions, as expressed on a comment thread on a blog.

What you did was unjustifiable. If you are going to apologize have the "human decency" to offer it without qualification.

mrs whatsit said...

Merge, I've deleted the comment and frankly can't remember what I said about your fathering. You chose to take the conversation down to the level of personal insults. I overreacted, mostly because I was upset about another thread that had nothing at all to do with you. I've deleted the comment. I've apologized for the obscenity. I apologize here and now for saying anything at all about you as a father. I've tried since then to be gracious and to wish you well in your commitment to your baby -- that was sincerely meant, whether you believe it or not. Now honestly, don't you think we are beating a horse here that has been dead a long, long time?

You might want to consider an apology of your own, but that's entirely up to you. Seriously, it's time for us both to move on.

fav.or.it said...

The baby is daddy's, these ppl are sick. but hey, she's nominated that's all that matters? Mark My words, she's gonna be a crazy bitch.

sent from: fav.or.it

fav.or.it said...

The daddy is her husband. Thus Downs syndrome. Well at least she's nominated, that's all that matters. Mark my words, she's a sick fu**

sent from: fav.or.it

Maria said...

Thanks for posting I really appreciate it I had so much fun reading this.you can check my link here ===>black trousers

«Oldest ‹Older   201 – 309 of 309   Newer› Newest»