• 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
Glen Contrarian said:
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.
Click to expand...

Im not debating majority status. Im explaining how there are red states with high entitlement rates.
 
rocket88 said:
Don't pretend she doesn't love it. If her name disappeared from headlines then she wouldn't matter politically anymore.
Click to expand...
That would be two groups that would be upset. Her and...you know...'those' guys....
 
Glen Contrarian said:
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.
Click to expand...

I have a problem with today's homicide stats, they don't tell the whole story. What I want to see how many were actually shot. As you know today, you're more likely to survive a gunshot wound today than fifty years ago. There was a lot learned during the Vietnam War just like there was during the two wars in Iraq and Afghanistan that will lead to more people surviving in the trauma wards in the future.

NYC is also a poor choice to use just like San Francisco would be. These two cities are freak cities where the people have little personal freedoms.
 
Kobie said:
:roll:

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

Would it be better if he said, "One party rule is horrible for the country--because there needs to be balance" ?
 
NIMBY said:
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 .
Click to expand...

30%? You are much too kind.
 
Threegoofs said:
The Palin clan continues their Jerry Springer antics, this time beating up people at a party and generally trashing the place.
Click to expand...

Here is more evidence of how the American system of democracy is inferior to the Parliamentary system (which almost all new democracies choose, in some form or other). In the Parliamentary system, a person has to work to the top of the ticket. In our system, you can be a glamorous, smart-mouthed flash-in-the-pan with no interest whatsoever in public policy or world events and come within a hair's breadth of the White House.
Bizarre.
 
Porchev said:
Would it be better if he said, "One party rule is horrible for the country--because there needs to be balance" ?
Click to expand...

He was actually correct about the one-party rule thing, then he started braying about how that's the goal of "the left."
 
I never underestimate coming up on an election.
I don't turn up the volume that my side will win the election such as USConservative continues to do.

So much can happen in the next 50 days.
Tomorrow the Kansas supreme court rules on their ballot issue.

Any particular GOP going Akin or Mourdock on us.
And the potential tsunami about to hit the GOP sitting governors is surreal .
Captain America said:
30%? You are much too kind.
Click to expand...
 
jpn said:
Here is more evidence of how the American system of democracy is inferior to the Parliamentary system (which almost all new democracies choose, in some form or other). In the Parliamentary system, a person has to work to the top of the ticket. In our system, you can be a glamorous, smart-mouthed flash-in-the-pan with no interest whatsoever in public policy or world events and come within a hair's breadth of the White House.
Bizarre.
Click to expand...

Now, my Mother is British, so I may not be objective.
I would give half my bank account to have a parliamentary system where
Mr. Obama could take on the entire GOP every day in question and answer .
 
NIMBY said:
Now, my Mother is British, so I may not be objective.
I would give half my bank account to have a parliamentary system where
Mr. Obama could take on the entire GOP every day in question and answer .
Click to expand...

Anything to take power away from the people, eh?
 
Glen Contrarian said:
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.
Click to expand...

Where's Senator wide stance when you need him?:lamo:lamo
 
APACHERAT said:
I have a problem with today's homicide stats, they don't tell the whole story. What I want to see how many were actually shot. As you know today, you're more likely to survive a gunshot wound today than fifty years ago. There was a lot learned during the Vietnam War just like there was during the two wars in Iraq and Afghanistan that will lead to more people surviving in the trauma wards in the future.

NYC is also a poor choice to use just like San Francisco would be. These two cities are freak cities where the people have little personal freedoms.
Click to expand...

You care to explain this idiocy? Have you ever been to NYC?
 
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...

Well she certainly doesn't fit the narrative of what the left view as a feminist.

Left radical feminists and their organizations like NOW are first conditioned to see themselves as victims. They view women as victims of patriarchal oppression, and some have become so extreme to view heterosexual intercourse as rape. These gals believe women who like being in a heterosexual relationship/marriage are brainwashed by men who deliberately manipulate them to increase control over them. This kind of anti-male, anti-heterosexual thinking is actually commonplace in feminist rhetoric and in the campus Women’s Studies programs that promote such beliefs at colleges and universities. Also, with victim status, they see government as needed to protect them from such oppression and aid them through entitlements. Like the Sandra Flukes of the world seeing free birth control as a right or a free ride/or next to it for their university studies.

Then along comes Palin, who by all counts is feminist in the proper defining of the word who never played the victim card. She earned her degree on her own dime. She entered politics without the aid of someone else's coattails like say Hilary Clinton . She did it while being a wife and mother which are two things that the leftist feminists claim are oppressing. But it didn't oppress Palin. And one of the main reasons Palin was successful in her endeavors is because she had a supportive husband and that is probably the biggest thing that sticks in the craw of any leftist feminist.
 
Last edited:
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...

Well she certainly doesn't fit the narrative of what the left view as a feminist.

Left radical feminists and their organizations like NOW are first conditioned to see themselves as victims. They view women as victims of patriarchal oppression, and some have become so extreme to view heterosexual intercourse as rape. These gals believe women who like being in a heterosexual relationship/marriage are brainwashed by men who deliberately manipulate them to increase control over them. This kind of anti-male, anti-heterosexual thinking is actually commonplace in feminist rhetoric and in the campus Women’s Studies programs that promote such beliefs at colleges and universities. Also, with victim status, they see government as needed to protect them from such oppression and aid them through entitlements. Like the Sandra Flukes of the world seeing free birth control as a right or a free ride/or next to it for their university studies.

Then along comes Palin, who by all counts is feminist in the proper defining of the word who never played the victim card. She earned her degree on her own dime. She entered politics without the aid of someone else's coattails like say Hilary Clinton . She did it while being a wife and mother which are two things that the leftist feminists claim are oppressing. And one of the main reasons Palin was successful in her endeavors is because she had a supportive husband and that is probably the biggest thing that sticks in the crawl of leftist feminists.
 
vesper said:
Well she certainly doesn't fit the narrative of what the left view as a feminist.

Left radical feminists and their organizations like NOW are first conditioned to see themselves as victims. They view women as victims of patriarchal oppression, and some have become so extreme to view heterosexual intercourse as rape. These gals believe women who like being in a heterosexual relationship/marriage are brainwashed by men who deliberately manipulate them to increase control over them. This kind of anti-male, anti-heterosexual thinking is actually commonplace in feminist rhetoric and in the campus Women’s Studies programs that promote such beliefs at colleges and universities. Also, with victim status, they see government as needed to protect them from such oppression and aid them through entitlements. Like the Sandra Flukes of the world seeing free birth control as a right or a free ride/or next to it for their university studies.

Then along comes Palin, who by all counts is feminist in the proper defining of the word who never played the victim card. She earned her degree on her own dime. She entered politics without the aid of someone else's coattails like say Hilary Clinton . She did it while being a wife and mother which are two things that the leftist feminists claim are oppressing. But it didn't oppress Palin. And one of the main reasons Palin was successful in her endeavors is because she had a supportive husband and that is probably the biggest thing that sticks in the craw of any leftist feminist.
Click to expand...

Good post. Its like the snide "you didn't build that" type of cry. I find all of these "identity politics" groups to generally be America-hating and generally marxist.
 
US Conservative said:
Good post. Its like the snide "you didn't build that" type of cry. I find all of these "identity politics" groups to generally be America-hating and generally marxist.
Click to expand...

Generally speaking of course. :roll:
 
vesper said:
Well she certainly doesn't fit the narrative of what the left view as a feminist.

Left radical feminists and their organizations like NOW are first conditioned to see themselves as victims. They view women as victims of patriarchal oppression, and some have become so extreme to view heterosexual intercourse as rape. These gals believe women who like being in a heterosexual relationship/marriage are brainwashed by men who deliberately manipulate them to increase control over them. This kind of anti-male, anti-heterosexual thinking is actually commonplace in feminist rhetoric and in the campus Women’s Studies programs that promote such beliefs at colleges and universities. Also, with victim status, they see government as needed to protect them from such oppression and aid them through entitlements. Like the Sandra Flukes of the world seeing free birth control as a right or a free ride/or next to it for their university studies.

Then along comes Palin, who by all counts is feminist in the proper defining of the word who never played the victim card. She earned her degree on her own dime. She entered politics without the aid of someone else's coattails like say Hilary Clinton . She did it while being a wife and mother which are two things that the leftist feminists claim are oppressing. And one of the main reasons Palin was successful in her endeavors is because she had a supportive husband and that is probably the biggest thing that sticks in the crawl of leftist feminists.
Click to expand...

No time tonight to look, Vesper, but you would enjoy reading a couple of Camille Paglia's articles at Salon (2008) on Sarah Palin. Despite her fem-creds being well in order, Jezebel and HuffPo naturally called her a "fan-girl." Can't have a pro-choice lesbian feminist going off the reservation, you know. Paglia even dared to suggest that feminism itself is a big enough tent that it could actually include feminists who are pro-life. LOL, as if this will do....
 
US Conservative said:
Good post. Its like the snide "you didn't build that" type of cry. I find all of these "identity politics" groups to generally be America-hating and generally marxist.
Click to expand...

Without victimhood there would be no Democratic party. It is easier to claim victimhood than to take personal responsibility. After all, taking personal responsibility for your own choices means living through the consequences. It is easier to claim victimhood than to work your ass off for what you desire.
 
nota bene said:
I have been waiting breathlessly for two days for updates to this latest adventure of the most important person of our times. Given the understandably insatiable curiosity about Palin and her family (remember Joe McGinniss moving in next door in Wasilla?) and the willingness of some news outlets to exploit even her little boy, I am terribly disappointed that Harvey Levin hasn't produced the shocking details.

Yet. Stay hopeful, Vesper. ;)
Click to expand...

Still no TMZ expose. I can't imagine why Harvey Levin hasn't leaped on this story.
 
VanceMack said:
Its funny...when you do **** like this YOU actually think it makes HER look bad.
Click to expand...

I agree that this thread trying to make Palin look bad is entirely unnecessary.

She is very much able to make herself look bad on her own, without any help from a thread like this.
 
McCain and McCain/Palin voters both enabled her to shout "Do you know who i am"? Cause yeah, she was governor of alaska, but who the hell even in alaska would know that if not for her disastrous VP campaign
 
GreatNews2night said:
I agree that this thread trying to make Palin look bad is entirely unnecessary.

She is very much able to make herself look bad on her own, without any help from a thread like this.
Click to expand...

which is why the intent is probly to make mccain look bad...but then he accomplished on his own when picking sarah palin

still, it's a legit question
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom