• 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:
The intent of the article was to smear Republicans in an election season. I'd like to say this is desparate behavior but its actually par for the course from the left. The smear is an alternative to discussion, intended to "grant" some unearned moral superiority to the poo flinging initiator. All they needed out there was the headline-thats good enough-but I'd expect more from our "adversarial" media.
Click to expand...

It is also not a coincidence that these stories are more prevalent on even numbered years.
 
vesper said:
I've never in my lifetime seen a conservative female in politics put through the wringer as she has. One can certainly understand her hate relationship with the media.
Click to expand...

Of course you haven't because dems are scared of her-she doesn't fit the narrative. She's got a strong personality, was an executive with executive experience, had a large family (and no abortion), and was conservative. Compare that to coverage of the black kid in missouri-the media and its party benefit when presenting a certain picture.
 
us conservative said:
the intent of the article was to smear republicans in an election season. I'd like to say this is desparate behavior but its actually par for the course from the left. The smear is an alternative to discussion, intended to "grant" some unearned moral superiority to the poo flinging initiator. All they needed out there was the headline-thats good enough-but i'd expect more from our "adversarial" media.
Click to expand...

amen!
 
US Conservative said:
Of course you haven't because dems are scared of her-she doesn't fit the narrative. She's got a strong personality, was an executive with executive experience, had a large family (and no abortion), and was conservative. Compare that to coverage of the black kid in missouri-the media and its party benefit when presenting a certain picture.
Click to expand...

Actually, she fits the narrative perfectly.

She's a know nothing who is a fake family values icon, with little knowledge and totally wrong solutions.
 
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...

Um, 'scuse you, I was referring to the Bush daughters. When it comes to the Palins, I could simply point out the pregnancy before marriage (which required premarital sex), the later divorce...the normal life one might expect living in a trailer park...and yes, I've lived in a trailer park before (and was a strong conservative like everyone else in my family in those days).

And FYI, we liberals don't point out all this because we expect anyone's children to be perfect. We point out all this because of the vast hypocrisy of the Right's insistence on "family values". You do remember the Moral Majority, Jerry Falwell, Jim and Tammy Faye Bakker, and more than a few homophobic Republicans who turned out to be homosexual themselves. If you'll check, even if we ignore Nevada, red states generally have higher divorce rates and higher teen pregnancy rates than blue states.
 
Glen Contrarian said:
And FYI, we liberals don't point out all this because we expect anyone's children to be perfect. We point out all this because of the vast hypocrisy of the Right's insistence on "family values". You do remember the Moral Majority, Jerry Falwell, Jim and Tammy Faye Bakker, and more than a few homophobic Republicans who turned out to be homosexual themselves. If you'll check, even if we ignore Nevada, red states generally have higher divorce rates and higher teen pregnancy rates than blue states.
Click to expand...

Democrat-Republican-Hypocrite.jpg
 
US Conservative said:
They are enclaves of dems. And they have no standards.
Click to expand...

So...let me get this straight - the worse numbers that red states generally have are not because of the god-fearing, law-abiding Republicans in those states, but because of "enclaves" of those godless, lawless liberals?

So...if that were the case, wouldn't that require that the numbers in blue states (where the majority of the people are, you know, LIBERAL) should be even higher?
 
VanceMack said:
Actually, I think the people that should be most embarrassed are the insignificant internet peons that are so obsessed with her.

:lamo
Click to expand...

Don't pretend she doesn't love it. If her name disappeared from headlines then she wouldn't matter politically anymore.
 
Glen Contrarian said:
So...let me get this straight - the worse numbers that red states generally have are not because of the god-fearing, law-abiding Republicans in those states, but because of "enclaves" of those godless, lawless liberals?

So...if that were the case, wouldn't that require that the numbers in blue states (where the majority of the people are, you know, LIBERAL) should be even higher?
Click to expand...

In many places that is the case, however in others it turns out rural areas tend to be more conservative-partially from conservatives who have fled the crap holes that are liberal big cities.
City vs. Country: How Where We Live Deepens the Nation's Political Divide - WSJ
Election2012tippedmore.jpg
 
APACHERAT said:
Chicago, Detroit, Oakland, Los Angeles, Compton, are all in blue states.

The other cities that are comparable to the above that are in red states are extremely blue cities.
Click to expand...

For the most part, the decisions that really impact an economy are made a level or two above cities. But I know that doesn't feed your idea that the whole country would be a utopia if everyone voted Republican.
 
clownboy said:
The sitting president's daughter? Sure that would be news. The bolded part tells you why.
Click to expand...

Personally, I think Sarah Palin plants these stories. Her name in the headlines is good for any political ambition she still has.
 
rocket88 said:
For the most part, the decisions that really impact an economy are made a level or two above cities. But I know that doesn't feed your idea that the whole country would be a utopia if everyone voted Republican.
Click to expand...

I wouldn't want the whole country voting Republican, that would be dangerous and we would end up with a totalitarian government, California is close to that and look at California today.

But that's the agenda of the political left in America, that everyone vote the Democrat ticket, destroy the opposition. Because inside every liberal is a totalitarian screaming to get out.
 
APACHERAT said:
I wouldn't want the whole country voting Republican, that would be dangerous and we would end up with a totalitarian government, California is close to that and look at California today.

But that's the agenda of the political left in America, that everyone vote the Democrat ticket, destroy the opposition. Because inside every liberal is a totalitarian screaming to get out.
Click to expand...

:roll:

More hyperpartisan twaddle. Don't you ever get tired of this?
 
Kobie said:
:roll:

More hyperpartisan twaddle. Don't you ever get tired of this?
Click to expand...

Don't you get tired of always commenting on any ones opinions who are not leftist ?

How about posting your own opinions on the topic ?

Participate in the thread instead of pretending you're Gene Siskel or Roger Ebert.
 
rocket88 said:
Personally, I think Sarah Palin plants these stories. Her name in the headlines is good for any political ambition she still has.
Click to expand...

I would counter with the FACT that Palin in the news highly motivates DEM boots on the ground.
In fact, I just got a call from one of them taking donations for the DNC.

Palin may have her 30% hard core, but every time she is in the news, the other 70% breathes a huge sigh of relief she isn't VP or President .
 
APACHERAT said:
Chicago, Detroit, Oakland, Los Angeles, Compton, are all in blue states.

The other cities that are comparable to the above that are in red states are extremely blue cities.
Click to expand...

I think you missed the point in the example I used. In 2013, NYC - the city, mind you - had a homicide rate of 2.9 per 100K, while the entire state of Louisiana had a rate of 10.5 per 100K (even though NYC has nearly 3X as many people as the state of Louisiana). If NYC were a state, it'd be tied for the 13th lowest homicide rate in America.

Look, AR, the inner cities do tend to have the highest murder rates - NYC's an exception to the rule. Where the homicide rate really plummets is in the suburbs and outlying metropolitan areas. But that's why there's such an obvious difference in the homicide rates - big cities are the financial hearts of any state in America. The bigger the city, generally speaking, the more money there is to be made. As a result - again, generally speaking - fewer people are in poverty...

...and it's the places with the lowest poverty rates that generally have the lowest homicide rates...whereas the places with the highest poverty rates generally have the highest homicide rates. And where are the places with the highest poverty rates? Michigan, the worst parts of some inner cities...and much of the South.

That's just the way it is.
 
APACHERAT said:
Don't you get tired of always commenting on any ones opinions who are not leftist ?

How about posting your own opinions on the topic ?

Participate in the thread instead of pretending you're Gene Siskel or Roger Ebert.
Click to expand...

I have been, thanks.
 
US Conservative said:
In many places that is the case, however in others it turns out rural areas tend to be more conservative-partially from conservatives who have fled the crap holes that are liberal big cities.
Click to expand...

I strongly agree that rural areas tend to be more conservative - remember, I grew up strongly conservative in the very deepest of the rural Deep South. That said, your map doesn't do you any good...because MOST people in blue states tend to be liberal - which is why they are, you know, BLUE states - and MOST people in red states tend to be conservative...which is what generally keeps them red.

That means that if higher rates of homicide, divorce, and teenage pregnancy were due to those godless, lawless lib'ruls, then the blue states would be higher, period.

But they aren't. Generally speaking, the red states are. And you can't get around that simple fact.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom