Rebuttal....
Posted By: sam on 2008-09-01
In Reply to: anyone else insulted over the Palin pick? - see inside
No, I am not insulted.
Your points:
Sarah Palin is against abortion and does not believe in birth control.
Response: Many people are against abortion and that is a major issue with them. It is their right. That is one of the reasons they WILL vote for her. There ARE some pro life Democrats. Google it.
Sarah does not believe in evolution and thinks all schools should teach creationism.
Response: What is wrong with teaching both sides of a story? Because you believe it is wrong it doesn't exist? That sounds more like Nazi Germany than America. What exactly about Christianity is so frightening to you? You believe in civil rights, individual freedoms, yada yada, as long as those freedoms stay in lockstep with the DNC. Does that seem America-like to you?
Your point: She doesn't have an opinion on the Iraq war.
Response:
Her son is deploying to Iraq next month and she says she is proud of him. I think her opinion is obvious.
Your point: She is a pro gun person.
Rebuttal: So are the majority of Americans. It is a constitutionally granted right of all americans.
Your point: She doesn't believe in global warming.
Rebuttal: That is an untruth. She just does not believe it is a man-made phenomenon. She established a commission in Alaska to study it and get a plan in place for Alaska.
Your point: She oppose gay marriage.
Rebuttal: So do a lot of the American people. Me included.
Point: She is against putting polar bears on the endangered species list.
Response: In Alaska, yes. She feels the science does not support it. Without seeing it, I don't know. I do know that oil and gas are a huge part of the state economy and many Alaskans work in the industry. She has to balance both.
Point: She is an advocate strongly for drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge.
Rebuttal: ANWR covers 19 million acres. The area that they want to drill in covers 2000 acres. Let's get real here. Palin has always said there would be bidding for the right to drill there and part of the bid had to address environmental issues.
Point: Her husband works for BP (British Petroleum) and she pushed for another pipeline to be built in Alaska.
Rebuttal: Her husband no longer works for BP. He quit when she became governor because of possible conflict of interest. Thousands of people in Alaska work for oil companies. As I said, the oil and gas business is the majority of the Alaskan economy. Should all the residents just move out and close the doors? They have as much right to live and work as the rest of us. Oklahoma, Texas, and many other states also are very dependent on the oil and gas business.
Point: At the age of 45, since she does not believe in birth control, had another baby and he has down syndrome. This seems to me to be pretty poor judgement on her part.
Rebuttal: No, pretty poor judgment would have been to shirk responsibility and abort the child. I applaud her decision.
Point: She says she has family values, she is a Governor and her husband works on the North Shore full time, who raises the Palin kids?
Rebuttal: Her husband does not work on the North face full time any longer. Still, there are a million families in this country where the mother and father work full time. Who is raising THOSE kids?
Point: Palin has her sisters ex husband fired from the Alaska State Patrol.Can anyone say abuse of power?
Rebuttal: He was not fired. He was given a 10-day suspension that was reduced to 5. Among the offenses was tasering his 11-year-old stepson, being drunk in uniform in his patrol car, and terroristic threatening of his former father-in-law (put a bullet in your f'ing mouth I believe was the quote). And for that he received a 5-day suspension. He SHOULD have been fired. He has no business wearing the uniform.
Can anyone say what kind of moron did NOT fire that man??
POint: Palin was a Mayor of a 9,000 person town and has been Governor for only 20 months.
Rebuttal: Neither of the presidential candidates, McCain or Obama, or Joe Biden, have ANY administrative executive experience (running a government). So she is more experienced in running a government than any of them.
Point: She voted for pat Buchanan over George Bush in 2000. If you think Bush is bad Buchanan is even worse.
Rebuttal: I will have to research this one before comment.
Point: She stated on 7/30/2008 she does not know what the VP does every day.
Rebuttal: She is a state governor. She is focused on running her state. Why should she be expected to know what the VP does every day? Is there a job description and we don't know about it? She meant specifically, not generally. The VP serves at the pleasure of the president, basically.
Point: Gos is named her kids Track, Bristol, Willow, Piper and Trig.
Rebuttal: Good grief, what difference does that make? Because she didn't name them John, Susie, Mary, Anna, and Joe...what does that even mean??
Point: The major newspapers in Alaska do not think she should be the VP pick.
Rebuttal: She enjoys an 80% approval rate by the people of the state who don't have an agenda vs papers who probably do. I have not seen proof of this either, so will have to research.
Point: Her mother-in-law said she is voting for Obama.
Rebuttal: Well good for her. God bless America, where we have a right to vote for whoever we want to.
Point: So America, is this this a responsible pick from a 72 year old man who has had repeated bouts of cancer? Do you want Palin running our country? Does being a lucky beauty queen now give people the credentials to be the VP?
Rebuttal: She has more experience than Obama already, and if we elect him, we get him day 1. Nobody has to die or get incapacitated. The beauty queen thing is a cheap shot and including it was not necessary. Contrary to your opinion, obviously, a woman can be pretty AND smart.
She does have the credentials. More credentials than Obama. More executive credentials than her running mate and both of the men on the other ticket. JOhn Mccain has more foreign policy experience than Obama. Obama has Biden. Sarah Palin has limited foreign policy knowledge. She would have an advisor if something happened to McCain, just like Obama has.
To call her inexperienced is to put the spotlight on the same inexperience on the part of the #1 guy on the other ticket. Perhaps that is a subject Democrats should avoid in the future.
Complete Discussion Below:  marks the location of current message within thread
The messages you are viewing
are archived/old.
To view latest messages and participate in discussions, select
the boards given in left menu
Other related messages found in our database
Rebuttal....
You seem fond of making extremely negative blanket statements about all liberals as though we all have the same views on every single issue, and you make it quite clear that in your perfect mind our views are just plain ignorant and wrong.
You make the same blanket statements about the "religious." But I suppose that is okay if yu do it?
Just because we sometimes get sick of hearing the same things from you over and over again does not necessarily mean we have contempt for ALL conservatives, just your incessant preaching of the same statements again and again. Here are a few that I am familiar with:
Your parents were Democrats but would not recognize the party as it is today, abortion = dead baby, states should vote on it, it's murder, etc. (your religion tells you it's wrong so you are above reproach on this one right?),
Kam, you have such a penchant for putting words in my mouth. Let me try to say this one more time...my personal opposition to abortion does not come from my being a Christian. It comes from basic morality. If you think otherwise, then you must think only Christians have morality? You know that is wrong. Yet you have such a negative view (to use your words) of Christians and conservatives, you don't care. You do the very things you accuse me of, and cannot see it. I never said I was above reproach. No one is perfect.
you think 30% to 40% off the top of your wages is enough and don't want any clueless liberals taking a penny more of your money for taxes since you assume we don't know how to fix some of the broken government programs and redirect money that's already coming in,
Yes, I think 30% to 40% off my wages is enough. That is my right. Why does that chap you so much? There is no law that says you can't give more than that of your check to the IRS, if you so desire. No one is asking you not to do whatever your heart burdens you to do. If it burdens you to give 50%, give it.
you want Fred Thompson to win because he is pro-life,
I want Fred Thompson to win because he is pro-life. Because he is pro state's rights, and more power there than at the federal level. I want Fred Thompson to win because he has a viable plan to fix Social Security. I want Fred Thompson to win because he wants to attempt to bring health care costs down instead of yet another huge entitlement program. I want Fred Thompson to win because he is ready to take the illegal immigration issue. I want Fred Thompson to win because I believe he will protect this country. Those are a few of the reasons I want Fred Thompson to win.
you cannot stand Hillary Clinton and think our country is screwed if she's elected,
There you go again with the cannot stand Hillary Clinton stuff. You invent thingbs to make your point. I have said that I have nothing against the woman personally. You really need to KNOW someone to have something against them personally, however, I can understand why you don't readily grasp that because you dislike me intensely and you don't know me EITHER. I do not agree with Hillary Clinton politically. She has VERY strong socialist tendencies and has had since her college years. This is not new for Clinton. Not that it matters to you if she is socialist, as that seems, by what you post, to be right up your alley. Which is fine, if that is what you want. You have a right to want that and I certainly would argue FOR your right to have that opinion. You CERTAINLY cannot say the same for me. That is ONE major difference in you and ME.
you think the American government is too dumb to figure out a way to make universal healthcare successful,
It is not just the American government, kam. Canada is struggling with theirs.France is now struggling with theirs. It is not so much making it work, i.e., taking care of people, especially in the beginning. But it inevitably becomes a cash cow that is not sustainable. The new French President is already saying that. If they don't get to the heart of the matter and bring health care costs down, no plan, private or public, is going to work. THAT has been my point all along, and I would rather the country not be bankupted in the search for "free" health care...and I don't think a greater burden should be put on the American people than is already on them tax-wise. I think the American government needs to learn to prioritize and live within its means and have said so over and over. Why is that so repugnant to you??
you think Bush is smart (LOL, LOL)
I said the man made higher SAT scores that I bet your or I either one did, and he hold's a Master's Degree from Harvard and also graduated from Yale. You do not do that if you are unintelligent. THAT is what I said. You can LOL all you want to, fact is fact. I do not understand why you get such a kick out of belitting others. And you certainly DO get a kick out of it.
and that most of our problems aren't his fault even though he's been in charge of things in DC for the last 7 years
Sigh. Kam...the President does not make law. Congress does.
, despite the fact that if things go wrong if Hillary's president THEN it WILL be her fault (but not George W's - not possible!), etc., etc.
There is no need in going into fact with you; you don't care about fact. You hate George Bush as much as you think I hate Hillary Clinton, and you can't see past that. Yet, it is okay to hate him and belittle him, but let someone say something negative about Hillary and you go ballistic. Do you not see the glaring hypocrisy in that?? And..if you were really paying attention...you would see that I have a great deal of things I do not agree with George Bush on. However, I do not blame him for all the ills in the country, just like I did not blame Bill Clinton for all the ills in the country while he was President.
I realize it is your right to post on this board, and I sometimes like to post on the conservative board as well, but I don't go over there and make blanket statements about ALL conservatives.
You totally missed the point of the "liberal" posts, but, again, that is not surprising. If it does not fit your agenda, you do not want to hear it. I have gotten definitions of "liberal" from several self-professed liberals. I have looked up the "Dictionary" definition of liberal. Because I wanted to know what they were about, in their own words. And the common thread was caring about "all living things," "taking care of the poor and downtrodden" and "tolerance." Now YOU tell me if YOUR posts follow those lines. They don't. You have little tolerance for anyone who does not agree with you, you have no tolerance of George Bush at all,you hate his guts and take very opportunity to belittle and mock him. That is the antithesis of what I just said about how liberals define themselves. You are okay with the wholesale slaughter of the unborn in the name of "choice." THAT is the antithesis of what I just typed. When a liberal dares to speak out, as that woman did in her article, about the sanctity of life, those who also call themselves liberal turn on her and say she is not really a liberal. Which led me to believe what the two posters who told me, on this very board, that there are no true liberals in the Democratic party. Based on what the claim of liberals is that they stand for, anyone with a halfway open mind has to agree. You SAY you are liberals, but you do not follow the basic precepts. Democrat, yes....liberal, not so much.
That's kind of like making broad, judgmental statements about a group of people based on skin color, in my opinion. I may make negative statements about the Bush administration, but their actions have earned my dissaproval over several years of dismal failures, and therefore I feel that is justified.
Ah, so because someone has "failed" in your eyes, you feel you have the right to mock, belittle, make snide remarks about someone personally, basically attack at every opportunity, and feel "justified" in doing so. Yet, when I try to champion the cause of the unborn, you jump on me in the same fashion, and feel "justified" in doing so. Where, or WHERE is your tolerance for dissenting opinion?
So next time someone gets annoyed with arguing with you because you believe you cannot possibly be wrong, try to step back and ask yourself if we despise all conservatives or if we've just grown tired of another endless argument with you.
I don't recall ever saying you, kam, despise conservatives (when you say "we," I assume you are talking about you and piglet, as you both certainly share a definite disdain for conservatives in general and Christians in particular). I believe you despise me, which is ridiculous because you do not know me. That matters little to me. I just find it odd that someone would have that strong a feeling toward someone they do not even know, just because they have a differing opinion.
Just for your information, I have spent lots of hours in consideration of the Democratic stand on a lot of issues. I don't make snap judgments on issues. I have lived a long time and I have been through different administrations. I have thought of both sides of the abortion issue, and though what some women might have to go through would not be pleasant and heart-breaking in their own right. But, in the final analysis, I am always brought back to the same truth. There is nothing more innocent, more deserving of all our protection than the unborn. And frankly, I cannot care whether or not that meets with your approval or whether it will make things rough for me when I stand up for them. It is a deeply held belief of mine that comes from a place of deep moral feeling and I cannot abandon that in the name of choice. You can, and that is your right. I cannot...and I will try to say this one more time. I do not hold that belief because I am a Christian. I hold that belief because I am a human being and my morality (we all have it, one does not have to be Christian to have morals). My faith in God only enhances what I know in my heart to be true.
Tell me this, kam. When have YOU ever stepped back and wondered if YOU could possibly be wrong in this issue, or any of the other issues we have talked about?
Rebuttal...
I have a theory. I will start with a saying of mine which resembles the title of a book by Ann Coulter. "If a conservative actually lived life, they'd be a liberal". I have tagged individuals such as the Observer as "arm chair Christians". These are people who have only gained knowledge of life from a book, what they see on TV, conversations with others, and have formed their infallible opinions about what ails the world and how to fix it.
Wow, piglet....how arrogantly judgmental of you. "Arm chair Christians." I know what I have done in my life and I certainly know what formed my opinions. Your opinion of me, your "tags," they speak only of your character, not mine. Verryyy Ann Coulterish post, piglet. You sound as much like her as she does.
I have been a missionary for most of my adult life.
I did not know pagans sent out missionaries. But good for you!
I have traveled to foreign countries and I have given aide to our own in need.
Again, good for you. That is admirable. Though I have not traveled in foreign countries, I have worked with Down's children here in the US (another deep moral calling I feel), and worked with programs to help women faced with the choice of aborting or no to be able to make a choice for life if they so desire, and it only affirms the choice I made to stand for the unborn. You choose not to. Certainly your right. And I would argue for your right to have that opinion. Sure cannot say the same thing for you, now can we?
If you live amongst those of different race, social structure, economic status, and a life completely unlike that afforded by being born or a resident in the United States, you have a much greater appreciation of human life in general.
Unless of course that person is conservative or the dreaded "arm-chair Christian." I guess we don't qualify as human life, even in general...??
It becomes more precious. If you hold a starving child, if you actually spend time with the homeless in America, talk with them, smell them, look into their eyes, you have a greater appreciation for human life. Arm chair Christians who label themselves a conservative have very little real appreciation for human life because they have never personally been touched by it. If they did, they would be a liberal.
I have held a Down's baby. I have hugged a Down's child, a Down's adult. They are precious, precious human beings. I have seen the pictures of infants in utero. I have looked into the faces of infants just born. That is why I will never, EVER be able to look the other way while abortion continues. Why that is so repugnant to you, I have no idea. Really arrogant of you to decide that I have no care in me for others and in the same breath in the name of choice destroy humans by the millions. But no matter how much I might disagree with it, you have the right to your opinion and state it. As do I.
Wow, that is the most judgmental, looking down your nose comment yet...lol. You certainly have staked your claim to be the Ann Coulter of the Democrat board. "They have no appreciation for human life because they have never been personally touched by it. If they had they would be liberal." That is a supremely arrogant statement. And that is not a true liberal quality, by definition. The definition of liberal is the antithesis of arrogant. You are a Democrat, piglet, yes, by ALL means. But a true liberal by the definition of liberals themselves? Not so much.
And again...WHY does that appreciation for human life not extend to, but EXCLUDE, the unborn? How does one justify that they have that appreciation for human life, but not extend it to the most innocent segment of human life. I am still amazed that you cannot see the absolutely glaring contradiction there.
I disregard 99.9% of her postings, as do probably most of the liberals who post. They don't make much sense to me. They do tend repeat themselves and most of her rebuttals are nothing more than spin and is much too fond of pointing out erroneous material.
It if is erroneous, rebutt it with facts that prove it is erroneous. Since you do not, one can only assume you cannot find any, and then result to personal shots and arrogant belitting, as this post is full of. If that is your brand of liberalism, no wonder the "true" liberals run from it and do not post on this board (THEIR words, not mine).
They are not written in the spirit of exhange of ideas or dialogue, they are written to try to enlighten and teach us, for if we really pay attention to her postings, we would have to come to the logical conclusion that she is right, right? One does become suspicious when another has an opinion and knowledge about practically everything and cannot seem to help themselves from saying them at every opportunity. I believe it stems from a control issue. Ha. That is amusing. I am about as far from a controlling person as exists. That's a good one. My posts are written to illustrate my point, just like yours are. You really are intolerant of any view different from yours, aren't you? What are you so afraid of? Where does that intolerance come from?
I appreciate your thoughts and I think your postings are great. Kindred. I wish/hope more would speak their convictions as well to counter the negative that pops up way to often.
rebuttal
Not everything on Fox is untrue. They give their real names and get the weather right most of the time. They are usually accurate on locating where a candidate is in the U.S. that particular day.
Dear, demographics refers to a selective set of characteristics used to define a group in regards to polling, etc.
As for only only place to get conservative views, you left off Rush Humbold, Michael Savage, Quinn and Rose, Hannity radio, O'Reilly radio, Wall Street Journal, multiple magazines, books by Coulter, Hannity, O'reilly, and on and on and on.
rebuttal -
http://sarahpalintruthsquad.wordpress.com/category/alaska-national-guard/
Rebuttal.....
From what I can see about the Democratic Leadership Counsel is they think Democrats should adopt the more centrist view when the run for something...the way Obama did. Obama is a far left liberal, his voting record says it, his history says it. But that is not the way he ran his campaign.
Rahm Emanuel was totally immersed in the Chicago political machine and counts Richard Daley as a mentor. There is a centrist for you.
as to his supporting the Iraq War....I believe that comes from his militant pro-Israel stance, not from any support of Bush. I think anyone who looks at his history knows that. And anyone who knows him knows how he stands on Israel, so I am assuming that is A-ok with Mr. Obama. It might cause some concern for Hamas though...they might withdraw their endorsement.
Chief of Staff is a title and I know you are not naive enough to think that Emanuel will not have Obama's ear, probably before anyone else.
A little on Mr. Emanuel: "At this point of his political career he was known for his intensity. Notably, he reportedly told British Prime Minister Tony Blair, prior to Blair appearing in public with Clinton for the first time after the Lewinsky scandal, "This is important. Don't fu*k it up."[17] Emanuel is said to have "mailed a rotting fish to a former coworker after the two parted ways."[16] On the night after the 1996 election, "Emanuel was so angry at the president's enemies that he stood up at a celebratory dinner with colleagues from the campaign, grabbed a steak knife and began rattling off a list of betrayers, shouting 'Dead! ... Dead! ... Dead!' and plunging the knife into the table after every name."[2] His "take-no-prisoners attitude" earned him the nickname "Rahm-bo".[16]
I think even his mother called him that...lol.
People who worked with Emanuel at that time "insist the once hard-charging staffer has mellowed out."
Let's hope he mellowed out. Not a lot of impeccable discretion going on THERE.
He left the White House to accept a well-paid position at Dresdner Kleinwort Wasserstein investment bank in Chicago, where he worked from 1999 to 2002 and reportedly earned US$18 million.[18]
Hmmm...$18 mil in 3 years. Not bad.
Republican rebuttal
You live in the same country as I do? Or maybe you live in a different "world". Perhaps it is the fantasy world of Emperor Dubbya and his oil company minions.
Wow, what a crude rebuttal!
I thought this site was for discussions, not crystal ball fortune-telling and sleezy name-calling. But, like you said, differing opinions.
Excellent rebuttal on all points...nm
x
And here's the don't blame anyone but Bush rebuttal
like clockwork.
Mythbusting your...er...mythbuster rebuttal....sm
News flash.
Socialism doesn't work.
Never has.
Never will.
Nan-ism post was in direct reply/rebuttal to the two posts above it.
Surely you would agree that when accused of something we should have a chance for rebuttal? And that our rebuttal would surely include proof/evidence of why we took a particular stand? Would you deny the liberal board that right? SOME of us may be tolerant (or as Nan put it, "sissies") but some of us are very capable of speaking up for ourselves.
I have read Nan on this board (and others as well) for almost two years so I think I have a pretty fair grasp of her opinion and style of posting.
|
