The Pot, The Kettle, and the Vegan

[Mavdog]

first of all, you interjected sarah palin and her children into the discussion in the very first post. your question "why" is pretty absurd, as you are the party that did it you are the one who can provide the answer.

the history of the presidency is that the president's children are "off limits". that was echoed by numerous historians in the article, from both sides of the aisle. obama is not seeking special nor different treatment than that which has been afforded other presidents, therefore no "hypocrisy" exists.

you've still not shown how palin's kids were used by her opponents in the campaign, while I've shown how obama's kids were used by his opponent.

so far it's the republicans who have been shown to exhibit hypocrisy....

[wmbwinn]

Originally Posted by Mavdog

first of all, you interjected sarah palin and her children into the discussion in the very first post. your question "why" is pretty absurd, as you are the party that did it you are the one who can provide the answer.

the history of the presidency is that the president's children are "off limits". that was echoed by numerous historians in the article, from both sides of the aisle. obama is not seeking special nor different treatment than that which has been afforded other presidents, therefore no "hypocrisy" exists.

you've still not shown how palin's kids were used by her opponents in the campaign, while I've shown how obama's kids were used by his opponent.

so far it's the republicans who have been shown to exhibit hypocrisy....

You truly are either tremendously weak in mental function or you are just a pathological liar who is enjoying this is in a sick way.

1)the "off limits" rule applies to the presidential candidates, not just the president.
2)I have shown several examples of how Palin's kids were used as political weapons
3)The Republicans were not at all involved in this pseudo attack (pseudo because no attack occurred) on Obama and his children. This attack came ironically from a typical tiny special interest group that flourishes in the Democrat Party.
Do you really think to imply that the Vegans are Republicans???????

So, which is it:
1)stupid?
2)pathological liar enjoying irritating me?

And, I will put it up to the larger group again:
If I am out of line here and if you think Mavdog has any sensible points, then let me know by posting in her defense.

[Mavdog]

Originally Posted by wmbwinn

You truly are either tremendously weak in mental function or you are just a pathological liar who is enjoying this is in a sick way.

1)the "off limits" rule applies to the presidential candidates, not just the president.
2)I have shown several examples of how Palin's kids were used as political weapons
3)The Republicans were not at all involved in this pseudo attack (pseudo because no attack occurred) on Obama and his children. This attack came ironically from a typical tiny special interest group that flourishes in the Democrat Party.
Do you really think to imply that the Vegans are Republicans???????

So, which is it:
1)stupid?
2)pathological liar enjoying irritating me?

And, I will put it up to the larger group again:
If I am out of line here and if you think Mavdog has any sensible points, then let me know by posting in her defense.

tsk tsk, you're going off the deep end there william.

which order to take this? hmm...

you haven't shown a single item where the palin children were used by the obama campaign, while I have posted a link to the mccain/palin campaign use of the obama children. oops, that musta gone right by your steely eye!

your "tremenously weak mental function" and "pathological liar" (just what do you accuse me of lying about btw? quite a strong accusation that I should take umbrage about, but considering that you're so very confused and disoriented I'll let it slide) remarks are truly ironic when one looks at the trail of this thread, and the inconsistency and backstepping you have managed to do. did you ever explain your comment that "Vegans believe that meat should not be served"? or why you ask if "the Palin children were treated better than the Obama children"?

so, if you have any instances of the obama campaign using palin's children as "political weapons" (recall I've produced an example of that very thing being done to obama's children by mccain/palin campaign) please show it.

you have a big bag of nothing william, and you should just stop and cut your losses.

[chumdawg]

First off, if there was any attack in these ads, it was most certainly NOT on Obama's children. No one was questioning their character, disparaging them in any way, or anything of the sort. What they were doing, rather, was USING them to make a political point. In other words: "Why shouldn't MY kids enjoy the same benefits YOUR kids do?"

That is an irresponsible--and in fact, illogical--argument. The president--any president--is not the "Father in Chief." He's the head of the executive branch of the government. His parenting and his caretaking of the executive branch are NOT one and the same.

I mean, how far can we go with this? The President's kids have a dog, why shouldn't I have a dog? The President's kids live in the White House, why shouldn't I live in the White House? The President's kids are adorable, why shouldn't I be adorable?

You see, the logical argument has NOTHING to do with the President's kids! The argument is that some kids have vegan options and other kids don't. That's IT. No more to it than that. What follows is that introducing the President's kids into the discussion distorts the argument in a highly unproductive way.

Candidly, this particular situation is not even a case of "let's leave the kids out of it." It's a case of an organization making a huge (and poorly advised) logical leap in an attempt to further their cause.

As for the Palin kids...that situation was unique to the candidate. She came onto the national scene as the quintessential "hockey mom" and as the de facto representative of good God-fearing moms whose kids always do it right and live the American dream. She marched those kids across the stage! It was SHE who used the kids for political benefit, first.

When it came out that one of the kids was just...well, a regular ol' kid...some of the luster was lost from the PR campaign.

But in terms of your argument: it was not her opponents who knocked up that teenage girl.

[wmbwinn]

Thanks, Chum.

As I said repeatedly, the Vegan Ad is not an attack on the children of Obama. But, apparently Obama was really upset about it.

I thought he reacted in a strange way.

The issue of attack on the Palin children was done primarily by the media and pundits, not specifically by any Ad or statement of the Obama/Biden campaign. But... does anyone really divorce Democrat leaning media from the overall campaign strategy of the Democrat Party???
For comparison, do you divorce Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity and other "Right Wing Nuts" from the overall strategy of the GOP???

Now, as to Mavdog's link to a TV Ad featuring the Obama children, here is a copy/paste narrative description:

According to political insiders, a negative ad targeting a rival's offspring is highly unorthodox, especially when the children in question are under the age of ten.

But after the two Obama kids scored in their performance on national television last night at the Democratic convention, "we had to do something to give the American people some straight talk on those two brats," Sen. McCain said today.

In the ad, which is being broadcast in key swing states, an announcer intones, "They're the cutest children in the world - but are they ready to lead?"

The spot uses visuals to link the two Obama kids to other famously cute kids, such as the young Drew Barrymore and the Cabbage Patch dolls.

The commercial goes on to blast the Obama children for "smiling and giggling but refusing to state their position on offshore oil drilling."

While some critics questioned how well the ad would play in living rooms across America, Sen. McCain defended it, telling reporters, "It played very well in all of my living rooms."

The actual Ad did nothing more than compare Obama to children (albeit his children) essentially saying he was young and inexperienced and would not/could explain his positions on issues...

Does anyone out there think that that is an attack on his children???

Now, be careful when you read the copy/paste up there. I don't have the video link. The narrative is comtaminated by someone else describing the Ad. What does the author describing the Ad mean when he says the following:

the commercial goes on to blast the Obama children for "smiling and giggling but refusing to state their position on offshore oil drilling."

What does he mean by the use of the word "blast"???
The copy/paste description of the Ad was written by someone who took offense.

The Ad was nothing more than a comparison of Obama to his own children meaning that Obama was young, inexperienced, and couldn't/wouldn't explain his positions....

Nothing more....

[wmbwinn]

The dishonesty issue is that you (Mavdog) say that there was no attack on the children of Palin. You continue to act like nothing at all happened...

And, yes, I did say/explain that the silly Vegan special interest group wants meat to not be served to the Vegans who ought to have a special diet provided to them in public schools. I never said Vegans wanted the entire menu altered for everyone.

[wmbwinn]

the only non MavDog poster in this thread who had any specific disagreement with me was Chumdog's statement that (If I can summarize) the Palin children were used by Palin for political gain and therefore became fair targets. Of course, that statement supports my view that they were targets.

We can debate whether they were fair targets. But, the issue is that they were targets.

[chumdawg]

Originally Posted by wmbwinn

The Ad was nothing more than a comparison of Obama to his own children meaning that Obama was young, inexperienced, and couldn't/wouldn't explain his positions....

Nothing more....

And that's why the ad was so ridiculous. A man getting close to 50 is far, far removed from being a child.

You look back at some of this stuff, and you can't help but think: "Did they *really* think this was going to work? Are they *really* that incompetent?"

Polysci profs are grateful, I am sure.

[wmbwinn]

Agreed, Chumdog.

But, the Ad is not an attack on his children nor is it a violation of the "leave the kids out of it" rule. IMO

[chumdawg]

Originally Posted by wmbwinn

the only non MavDog poster in this thread who had any specific disagreement with me was Chumdog's statement that (If I can summarize) the Palin children were used by Palin for political gain and therefore became fair targets. Of course, that statement supports my view that they were targets.

We can debate whether they were fair targets. But, the issue is that they were targets.

That's the way you frame it. By my recollection, Palin splashed on to the scene with tremendous favorability (at least in terms of her image, which included in no small part her role as mother...her political experience and qualifications notwithstanding). The family was seen as beautiful. (Not unlike Obama's.) No attacks were made.

Let me repeat that: no attacks were made.

When it came out that the teenage girl was evidently doing the same thing that Republicans disapprove of, the luster came off the rose. It is not too far separated from a John Edwards fooling around on his wife (he a Democrat, mind you). Point is, the electorate reconciles what you say you are with you actually are. And in the case of Palin, she was someone who said she was--or, to be fair about it, we thought she was--representative of that classic God-fearing Christian family who doesn't sleep around on their wives and who don't go having sex before they are married.

When the image was shattered, it was not an indictment of Bristol Palin. It was an indictment of her mom. There is a difference.

[Mavdog]

Originally Posted by wmbwinn

The dishonesty issue is that you (Mavdog) say that there was no attack on the children of Palin. You continue to act like nothing at all happened...

there was no "attack" on palin's children, and you still have not produced a single example of an attack on her children. there were plenty of attacks on sarah palin, for her clear inconsistency, for her failure to grasp the issues, for advocating celibacy as an answer to teenage pregnancy and the irony of her own daughter getting knocked up out of wedlock...see the difference?

you throw out this supposed "attack on palin's children" ad nauseum, and fail to offer evidence.

either show the evidence or stop the recitation

And, yes, I did say/explain that the silly Vegan special interest group wants meat to not be served to the Vegans who ought to have a special diet provided to them in public schools. I never said Vegans wanted the entire menu altered for everyone.

that is not what you posted, you did not post anything about "meat..not served to vegans", you posted that "Vegans believe that meat should not be served." if you did not mean what you posted (as I asked before..), just correct it. don't act like you didn't say it...cuz you did.

[DirkFTW]

Originally Posted by FINtastic

underrated post

[mcsluggo]

Originally Posted by wmbwinn

As I noted, you need to look for B12 supplements or fortified food which is what you admitted by indicated that you prefer soy products fortified with B12.

You still overlook major points to focus on twisting the most minor points. You ignored the majority of my explanation.

You also have not addressed the main issue which was:

Obama is furious that the silly little special interest group pictured his daughters without maligning his daughters or him.

Even your weak objections support my assertion that there is hypocrisy at play. What infuriates Obama is minimal. What was done to Palin using her children for political purposes was much larger and more egregious.

Hence the title I chose using the reference to the Pot calling the Kettle black...

Why try to derail me by arguing the extent that Palin's children were used for political purposes? That has nothing to do with the point that Obama is furious over the Vegan ad while allowing/ignoring the more egregious violation of the "leave the kids out of it rule" of politics in the matter of Palin...

Vegans piss me off in general...

but your OTHER point seems to rest on the unstated assumption that it was THE OBAMAS that were being mean to the Palin children (so they have lost any right to be protective of their own children). I really see no connection from point A to point B....?

Let me ask you this.... Since I dislike candidate Palin, and some people were mean to the Palin children... does that mean that I have squandered my right to be mad when I think somebody is mean to my own children?

[wmbwinn]

Originally Posted by mcsluggo

Vegans piss me off in general...

but your OTHER point seems to rest on the unstated assumption that it was THE OBAMAS that were being mean to the Palin children (so they have lost any right to be protective of their own children). I really see no connection from point A to point B....?

Let me ask you this.... Since I dislike candidate Palin, and some people were mean to the Palin children... does that mean that I have squandered my right to be mad when I think somebody is mean to my own children?

The "unstated point" was never stated. It would have been tremendously stupid for Obama to directly target the greater Palin family including the children. So... his media friends did it for him. Convenient.

And, I did already explain that. Mavdog also intended (and still intends) to hold me to proving Obama himself maligned the children of Palin as a method to destroy Palin as a viable candidate.

Honestly, I don't understand the logic or meaning of your last paragraph above. I do not think you would squander your right to be mad at me if I disparaged your children.

However, similar to Chumdawg, you also above said that "some people were mean to the Palin children" which again is another agreement that the Palin children were targets of an overall strategy although I can't prove that Obama orchestrated it.

As I noted/questioned before (with no response), shall we take the Glenn Beck Show, the Rush Limbaugh program, the Andrew Wilkow program, the Church program, the Sean Hannity program, and other "Right Wing Nuts" and never draw any connection between them and the GOP at large?

The minions of the leader may not be proven to be tied to the leader but that does not mean they are not on the same team...

[wmbwinn]

I find it repugnant that you would continue to act like there was not a significant effort to destroy the Palin candidacy by attacking her family. I find it disturbing that you would ask for proof as if you really believe nothing happened. The fact that there is not an ad with a closing statement "I am Barack Obama and I approve this message" does not mean that there was not a serious broad persistent attack launched.

Here is one little link of a youtube. After it is over, look at the huge volume of other youtube entries from a broad range of sources that atttack various aspects of the Palin family.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XEQdYdCfl60

[wmbwinn]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8u-Ij...eature=related

the above is aired on the Fox News... A guest speaker goes right after Bristol.

[wmbwinn]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hm36T...eature=related

[wmbwinn]

and, on CBS (just in case you think all links are from private individuals):

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8GYD4...eature=related

(the above link shows the questioner asking questions that put the friend of Palin on defense regarding the pregnancy of Bristol).

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0_wF1...eature=related

(the above link draws questions that the Mother of a child with Down's Children can't hold a job outside of the home without neglecting the child; the self admitted "liberal" speaker also says that Palin cannot be outside the home serving as Vice Prez because her daughter is pregnant)

[wmbwinn]

on CBS:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X2KPs...eature=channel

"How can she keep the government under control if she can't keep her daughter under control?"; discussion of whether the pregnancy is a matter in the campaign or not. several short statements that attack mixed with those that support.

[wmbwinn]

On CBS (so much for Mavdog's assertion that the Trig parentage issue was an internet phenomena of no consequence):

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A7Coy1OAQXY

[wmbwinn]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vphLN...rom=PL&index=5

Discussing the David Letterman attack/joke regarding Palin's daughter(s).

[wmbwinn]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dBeXa...eature=related

A discussion about why people hate Palin...

A reason for the terrible attacks at her and her family...

[wmbwinn]

another article showing exactly the sort of mindset that leads to the hatred of Palin and the attack on her family:

++++++++++++++++++++++++++=

Today's question: Is a female candidate's performance as a mother truly off limits during a campaign? Previously, Mangu-Ward and Marcotte discussed the GOP’s downplaying of Cindy McCain's success as a businesswoman, the media’s focus on gender, whether a socially conservative candidate could ever appeal to feminists and Gloria Steinem’s criticism of Sarah Palin.


Political men tout their parenting prowess. Why not women?
Point: Katherine Mangu-Ward

Flash back a couple weeks to Joe Biden's introduction at the Democratic National Convention. Over violins, we hear, : "No matter where he is or no matter what he's doing, if one of the children calls, he stops and takes the call. ... He's a wonderful father, he's an exceptional grandfather, and that's really what it's about for him." When Biden's speech ends, an army of small blond Biden kin rushes the stage. In fanciful moments, I sometimes wonder whether politicians are very different from you and me -- a kind of alien race living symbiotically (or, perhaps, parasitically) among us. It's comforting to hear about their family lives because it reassures us that they are, in fact, genetically human.

Many considered Rudy Giuliani's falling out with his son yet another indication of his intemperate nature and poor interpersonal skills. The Clintons were rightly praised for trying to protect their awkward daughter from the spotlight. Now the Democrats can't seem to shut up about how great a dad Biden is.

Yet we're supposed to feel vaguely skeeved out when we inquire into Sarah Palin's parenting techniques. How exactly did the talk about the birds and the bees go with Bristol, Sarah? Are you going to hire a nanny to help the would-be Second Dude?

That's a shame. There's a certain minimum standard of human decency you can generally ascribe to good parents. And when you're talking about politicians, male or female, there's a higher-than-average chance they might not meet the minimally decent threshold. Reports on Palin's PTA attendance record are important, in their way, as are tales of Biden's Amtrak addiction. Parenting is a window into the character of the people who hold power over us.

On the other hand, you don't want a candidate to be too good of a mother or father.

Let's imagine the vice presidency actually mattered: Would you still find it heartwarming if Biden announced that he was going to keep commuting home on Amtrak every night? What about taking calls from his grandchildren in the middle of a meeting with Iranian diplomats?

There's something not quite right when male politicians splash their paternal prowess all over the place, but female candidates and those who cover them have to tiptoe around the issue. Maybe we can end on a note of agreement, Amanda. Here's a real double standard. Send up the feminist bat signal!

It's been a fun week, Amanda. Thanks for putting up with me. Let's do this again sometime.

Katherine Mangu-Ward is an associate editor at Reason magazine.


Palin invites the parental scrutiny
Counterpoint: Amanda Marcotte

I do fully agree with you, Katherine, that too much is made out of politicians' parenting abilities, especially women's. I do hold out one exception, though -- politicians who support intrusive government action on our home lives should be held to the very standards they'd impose by law on the rest of us. If the words "sanctity of life" or "sanctity of marriage" ever pass between your lips, I consider that an open invitation for the citizenry to file through your underwear drawer and follow you into any airport bathroom to witness any foot-tapping antics.

I find it puzzling that you excoriate Biden for making a fuss over his paternal leanings and let Palin off the hook. If anything, the Republican running mate leaned even more on her family history to sell herself. The McCain campaign has gone beyond saying, "Look at her lovely family!" to implying that the presence of five children somehow counts as a qualification for office in and of itself. I can't help but think that's what Carol Fowler, the South Carolina Democratic Party's chairwoman, was trying to get at when she claimed that Palin's major qualification was that she hadn't had an abortion. It was a poorly phrased remark, but the kernel of truth is there. For the rabid right-wing base, the presence of five children offers reassurance that Palin is a good woman who risks child-bearing every time she has sex -- you know, unlike the rest of us sluts. Because the five children are spotlighted all the time and we all know their names by now, I can't help but think that kind of pandering is exactly what's going on.

I do think it's ill-advised to question Palin's mothering skills. We simply can't know much about them. It's entirely possible that Palin, like many socially conservative politicians, is a huge hypocrite and went out of her way to provide sex education to her eldest daughter, or maybe she holds her children to the same standard of ignorance she would hold yours. We can't know. Teenage pregnancy happens in pro-choice and anti-choice households -- and in households that are publicly anti-choice but privately allow daughters to have behaviors they think should be denied to the rest of us.

But considering how Palin wants the government to control what you do in your bedroom by punishing you with mandatory childbirth, it's fair to examine how her own teenage daughter's pregnancy factors into this. The far right is singing hosannas for Bristol Palin, who is doing what they want to be mandatory for all women -- having a shotgun marriage and her first child just because she got pregnant. It's a bit of an understatement to suggest that average American voters do not want teenage pregnancy and marriage for their daughters. It would be a huge disservice to the public not to seize on this opportunity to educate them about the extremist fundamental right wing that apparently wholly owns the GOP, as evidenced by the fact that Palin had to be nominated as a gimme to the hard right. Apparently, John McCain -- with his 0% NARAL Pro-Choice America rating, his unwillingness to support even rape victims seeking justice and his many years of displays of submission to George W. Bush -- was still not enough to satisfy the hard right.

Amanda Marcotte is the executive editor and writer for the blog Pandagon.net. Her first book, "It's a Jungle Out There: The Feminist Survival Guide to Politically Inhospitable Environment," is published by Seal Press.

http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/...,3072334.story

[Mavdog]

it is truly amazing to read your conclusion that a discussion of a) bristol palin's out of wedlock pregnancy, esp in the light of sarah palin's actions as governor to limit sex ed and her position that teen pregnancy can be stopped by a "just say no" approach, b) the rigors of taking care of a special needs child and how that situation places a burden on the parent, c) a general discussion of the double standard applied to women and their role as mothers and members of the workforce, that any of these are "attacks on palin's family".

apparently the mere act of bringing up the family is an "attack" in your eyes.....

ridiculous conclusion.

[wmbwinn]

1)CBS aired the accusation that Trig was not Sarah Palin's daughter
2)LA Times, Amanda Marcotte:

But considering how Palin wants the government to control what you do in your bedroom by punishing you with mandatory childbirth, it's fair to examine how her own teenage daughter's pregnancy factors into this.

This is similar to what Chumdawg said and what Mavdog has also hinted at repeatedly: It is fair game to insult and hold a public court of opinion on Bristol's pregnancy because of a need to investigate/oppose 'right to life', 'abstinence', etc. because Sarah Palin's politics are opposed to abortion.

This is just not true. A lot of women would have aborted Trig due to Down's syndrome. A lot of women would have sought an abortion in Bristol's condition at her age. The Palins fiercely are opposed to abortion. The fact that you have a Down's syndrome child and a teen age pregnancy and Palin is walking around saying that abortion is not an option for her and her family and that she is generally opposed to the far reach of abortion across the nation makes a lot of Mavdogs in the world very angry (Mavdog and I have had lengthy discussions on abortion before).

The fact that you hate the politics of Sarah Palin does not grant you the free license to put her family on public trial. I disagree with Mavdog, Chumdawg, and Amanda Marcotte.

Dick Cheney's daughter is a lesbian. Does anyone ever criticize Dick Cheney for being a hypocrite since he is a Republican???? Does anyone ever put Cheney's daughter on the court of public opinion??? The answer is NO. And, why is that???
Simple:
Lesbian lifestyles and groups are part of the Democrat Party coalition so Democrats can't/won't attack Cheney or his daughter because that would be hitting their own family of allies.


Mavdog, Chumdawg, and Marcotte are all arguing that the treatment of Bristol and Palin's family in general is fair game because there are contraindications to the message of Palin and the situation in her own family.
Well, there is a similar situation with Cheney and no attack. No, the real issue is just that Sarah Palin produces extreme hatred in many people because she is:

1)a successful woman who is also a mother of a relatively large family
2)a successful woman who can balance family and political life even with a family
3)a woman with a Down's Syndrome baby who publicly speaks about how abortion was not an option for her and how happy she is with her wonderful child
4)a NRA supporting, gun toting, Moose/Cariboo shooting hunter and fisher who supports the Second Amendment
5)a small government proponent whose state actually has no income tax and even refunds money to the citizens each year
6)supports "Drill Here, Drill Now" politics and comes from a place with plenty of untapped oil
7)She is attractive and well spoken

In essence she is everything the Woman's Lib Movement ever tried to be and she did it completely opposite of everything the general Woman's Lib movement stands for...

3)The frequent slaps from Hollywood from David Letterman and many, many others. Slaps frequently aimed at Bristol mainly

4)frequent use of the "man about town" interview method in journalism where many people are interviewed on the street. Many rude statements made by common people on the street. The journalist and the paper/program EDIT CONTENT and CHOOSE what they air, you know....

[Mavdog]

it's always revealing to hear someone project their own thought processes on others to see just how they think.

in this case, the words "angry" , "hate" and "hatred" speak volumes.

I don't know of any person who is "angry" that trig palin was born. can you produce anyone who says such a ridiculous comment?

likewise there is really no "hate" of sarah palin's politics. see, it's possible to disagree without "hate". you should try it sometime.

the issue (as has been mentioned over and over and over...) is the public stance of sarah palin on the need for sex education (she opposes it), the need for education of how contraceptives prevent unwanted preganacies (she opposes it), and how a program of emphasis on abstinence without exposure to contraceptives doesn't work to prevent teen pregnancy. along comes her teenage daughter who shows the falacies of sarah palin's positions, and yes bristol palin, through her own actions, becomes a subject for discussion.

the discussion of trig palin is in the context of the demands a special needs child palces on the parent, and no this discussion is not an "attack" on trig, is not an "attack" on sarah palin, it is a positive discussion. I'll go out on a limb and say that sarah palin supports this discussion too, as one of her goals is a better understanding of the manner society deals with special needs children such as her son trig.

so no, there has not been any use of the palin kids as "political weapons". the mere mentioning of their names is not anything like using them for political gain.


btw cheney was ridiculed for his attack on the gay community for the political benefits it provided in 2004 (it always gets out the vote to use these "attacks on family values" card) and then when he leaves office he comes out and supports the right of gay couples to get legal standing. just another example of your being wrong...

[mcsluggo]

Originally Posted by wmbwinn

....<<lots of relevant stuff>>....

Well, there is a similar situation with Cheney and no attack. No, the real issue is just that Sarah Palin produces extreme hatred in many people because she is:

....
7)She is attractive and [bold]well spoken[/bold]

... <lots of other relevant stuff>

or MAYBE it is because she appears completely unversed in a wide array of national affairs.. and worse... completely uninterested in them.

hmmmm?

[92bDad]

It's about lunch-time!!!

I think I'm going to try one of those Vegan Burger's. It's made of 100% Organic Vegan inredients after being process through 100% Cattle and separated from the waste.

Once process these Vegan ingredients are knows as 100% Beef, where they are processed and flame broiled or grilled to taste.

Those of you who prefer to eat grass, I hope you enjoy your lunch brownies!!!

Make my Vegan Burger a Double with Double Cheese.

Happy lunch my wonder cyber friends, it's truly a magical day!!!