• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Who should be embarrassed by the drunken Palin brawl the most?

This is embarassing for:

  • Total voters
    47
US Conservative said:
Give them some time, I expect Obama's daughters wont be perfect. Liberals will draw a line in the sand and state its not virtuous to mention. Why after the contradictory history of the left? Because they say so.
Click to expand...

Brilliant! Really went out on a limb there, any other predictions? :lol:
 
US Conservative said:
Give them some time, I expect Obama's daughters wont be perfect. Liberals will draw a line in the sand and state its not virtuous to mention. Why after the contradictory history of the left? Because they say so.
Click to expand...

The oldest Obama daughter is 16 right now so 2 more years and she is fair game. That is what I get from the left. If the person becomes an adult, they are fair game.
 
Kobie said:
Which is ludicrous, if you ask me. Nancy Reagan lived just as "lavishly" as Michelle Obama does, and nobody cared. It's rank hypocrisy for you guys to get pissy about it now.
Click to expand...

She lived lavishly, while her husband pursued policies aimed at helping all Americans to live more lavishly as well.

Mrs. Obama lives lavishly while her husband pursues polices aimed at keeping more and more Americans trapped in poverty.

I think this makes all the difference.
 
Kobie said:
Which is ludicrous, if you ask me. Nancy Reagan lived just as "lavishly" as Michelle Obama does, and nobody cared. It's rank hypocrisy for you guys to get pissy about it now.
Click to expand...

:shrug: I wasn't really politically aware at that point, so I couldn't really comment.

The questions I would ask would be:

1. was it on their dime, or ours
2. if ours, was it during economic hardship, or rapid growth

Those two items would, I think, speak to propriety.
 
Glen Contrarian said:
Feel free to point out where the Obama daughters have been involved in alcohol-related offenses.
Click to expand...
What? Do you have any proof that the Palin children were intoxicated? No. But that doesn't stop you from implying it. You know if my party was engaged in going after the kids of a politician like your party has especially in regard to Palin's family, I would be outraged. But not you or any other progressive. Why is that? I think I know. Progressives have one standard they expect others to live up to but they don't hold themselves to the same. I think it comes from those on the right are often people of faith which usually means they strive for higher moral ground. The goals they set for themselves are high. They don't always reach those goals but for many they strive to. When one of them or even their children stumbles, the left likes to use that as being hypocrites instead of realizing all are human and to be human is to err. A way of mocking those of faith. They instead want to use standards to judge these people that even themselves or their own children can't live up to and for the most part don't even try because the moral standards they have set for themselves is much lower than those they judge. When you operate under double standards one can literally get away with just about anything.
 
Bob Blaylock said:
She lived lavishly, while her husband pursued policies aimed at helping all Americans to live more lavishly as well.

Mrs. Obama lives lavishly while her husband pursues polices aimed at keeping more and more Americans trapped in poverty.

I think this makes all the difference.
Click to expand...

:roll:

In other words "It's OK if you're a Republican." Gotcha.
 
US Conservative said:
Its a disgusting display the illiberalism of lefty "tolerance".
.
Click to expand...

I would have called it a great display of trailer trash behavior, by the Queen of trailer trash, Sarah Palin, and her undisciplined, boorish, and uneducated family. To each his own, I guess.
 
vesper said:
What? Do you have any proof that the Palin children were intoxicated? No. But that doesn't stop you from implying it. You know if my party was engaged in going after the kids of a politician like your party has especially in regard to Palin's family, I would be outraged. But not you or any other progressive. Why is that? I think I know. Progressives have one standard they expect others to live up to but they don't hold themselves to the same. I think it comes from those on the right are often people of faith which usually means they strive for higher moral ground. The goals they set for themselves are high. They don't always reach those goals but for many they strive to. When one of them or even their children stumbles, the left likes to use that as being hypocrites instead of realizing all are human and to be human is to err. A way of mocking those of faith. They instead want to use standards to judge these people that even themselves or their own children can't live up to and for the most part don't even try because the moral standards they have set for themselves is much lower than those they judge. When you operate under double standards one can literally get away with just about anything.
Click to expand...

Except, of course, it was one of her ignorant offspring that started the fight. Don't let facts get in the way, however.
 
Wiggen said:
Except, of course, it was one of her ignorant offspring that started the fight. Don't let facts get in the way, however.
Click to expand...

I'm sure the little angels did not partake of alcoholic beverages. :roll:
 
Wiggen said:
Except, of course, it was one of her ignorant offspring that started the fight. Don't let facts get in the way, however.
Click to expand...
That's just it Wiggen, we don't have the facts so this is nothing more than a gossip thread to purposely demean the Palin's who may not be guilty of anything. But it sure does its damage implying they are. After all their mother goes around endorsing candidates in Alaska and elsewhere. If you can throw out a manmade scandal to discredit her, who becomes the winner?
 
Mason66 said:
Just because the kids were mentioned doesn't mean they were being attacked.

Don't you see a difference?
Click to expand...

I don't recall anybody's kids being "attacked."

As a btw, I personally think its an unfortunate trend when we hear and then repeat an association between political discourse with the language of violence. When this is done I personally fear American politics degenerating into real violence because we are conditioning ourselves to think if it as one in the same. I'm not suggesting everyone in America will succum to engaging in violence but all it would take is a handful and we, America of all places, could degenerate into a two bit third-world country where political hostilies are so high and the public thinks of politics in violent terms.

In my opinion calling criticism and other non-complementary political commentary attacks, is a propaganda tool intended to silence opposition by vilifying the opposition as those who committ acts of cruelty against women and children. I also think its a slippery slope that could and has lead some to actually include acts of violence toward those they classify as their opposition since in their minds they've concluded its only evening the score.
 
Kobie said:
:roll:

In other words "It's OK if you're a Republican." Gotcha.
Click to expand...

Not so much about political partisanship as about the distinction between living lavishly on the backs of a public that one is willfully parasitizing and keeping in poverty, compared to doing so while acting to help improve the living standard for the public as a whole.

Even the most extreme wrong-wing hack has to admit that the Obamas, at this point, undeniably fall into the former category. They are living lavishly at the expense of the public that they are suppose to be serving.
 
Bob Blaylock said:
Not so much about political partisanship as about the distinction between living lavishly on the backs of a public that one is willfully parasitizing and keeping in poverty, compared to doing so while acting to help improve the living standard for the public as a whole.

Even the most extreme wrong-wing hack has to admit that the Obamas, at this point, undeniably fall into the former category. They are living lavishly at the expense of the public that they are suppose to be serving.
Click to expand...

The idea that Obama is "willfully keeping people in poverty" is patently absurd.
 
vesper said:
That's just it Wiggen, we don't have the facts so this is nothing more than a gossip thread to purposely demean the Palin's who may not be guilty of anything. But it sure does its damage implying they are. After all their mother goes around endorsing candidates in Alaska and elsewhere. If you can throw out a manmade scandal to discredit her, who becomes the winner?
Click to expand...

Except for the, you know, EYEWITNESSES.

I guess the police report saying alcohol was involved is just a confirmation.
 
Liberals don't like strong women. Especially ones with strong right hooks.
 
Sometimes you gotta fight. For the right. To Paaaaaaaaaaaarrty.


Wiggen said:
Except, of course, it was one of her ignorant offspring that started the fight. Don't let facts get in the way, however.
Click to expand...
 
Kobie said:
The idea that Obama is "willfully keeping people in poverty" is patently absurd.
Click to expand...

Sure it is. Obama knows better, any idiot can look at his failed policies and see this. But how his policies were presented is immaterial-the effect is the same-poverty for all.
 
US Conservative said:
Sure it is. Obama knows better, any idiot can look at his failed policies and see this. But how his policies were presented is immaterial-the effect is the same-poverty for all.
Click to expand...

Well, perhaps not poverty for all. Mr. Obama and his family sure are not experiencing the same consequences of his policies that most Americans are experiencing.
 
Bob Blaylock said:
Well, perhaps not poverty for all. Mr. Obama and his family sure are not experiencing the same consequences of his policies that most Americans are experiencing.
Click to expand...

Me either. I'm doing very well post recession. Most of the people I know are too, even the ones who had a tough time in 2009 with employment and plunging stock portfolios.

Thanks, Obama!
 
US Conservative said:
Sure it is. Obama knows better, any idiot can look at his failed policies and see this. But how his policies were presented is immaterial-the effect is the same-poverty for all.
Click to expand...

Because we all know how much Conservatives care about poor people. :lamo:lamo:lamo
 
Threegoofs said:
Me either. I'm doing very well post recession. Most of the people I know are too, even the ones who had a tough time in 2009 with employment and plunging stock portfolios.

Thanks, Obama!
Click to expand...

Most americans are doing better now than they were in 2009 after Bush's recession.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom