Palin agrees to interview

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: Craig234

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: Perknose

No other interviews are scheduled. It will be the first TV interview for Palin since she was named 10 days ago as running mate to John McCain.

Color me highly unimpressed so far. Time will tell how this all shakes out, though.

Boy, it's such a surprise to hear you(or any other leftist) say that. As if you'd be impressed no matter what she did. WAHHH.... she won't talk to the media.... WAHHHH... it'll just be softballs.... WAHH......

So, if Obama came out for legalizing crack tomorrow, any criticism you posted could be negated by saying "Boy, it's such a surprise to hear you say that".

That's a non-argument, a throwaway personal comment as if stating he's not in favor of Palin means his reasons are not worth discussing. You are sure good at political chat.

But you go downhill from there - the "WAHHH" "WAHH" 'argument', now that really answers his point.

"WAHHH" can have a place in pointing our whining, *if* the fact there's whining is proven. You can't and you don't. You just whine. WAAAHHHHH.

:roll: Hello - the whole f'n point is that it wouldn't matter what she did - he wouldn't be impressed so it's stupid for him to post that since it's obvious. Now if he had actually had something to say about the topic it'd have been different but "unimpressed" is just lame commentary given his politics. It'd be like me saying I was "unimpressed" with BHO's future scheduled whatever.

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: Craig234

Originally posted by: loki8481
hid it? practically everyone knew in Alaska.

It was news to 49 states, the rest of the world, and part of Alaska. Your side tries to lie that reporting the facts is a terrible personal attack, as a political attack.

Psstt- - he's a liberal. He's YOUR side.

And you missed my post. Just because the elite media didn't know(didn't bother themselves with that far away and cold place) doesn't mean that they were "hiding" it.

 

[nageov3t]

Originally posted by: Craig234

Originally posted by: loki8481
hid it? practically everyone knew in Alaska.

It was news to 49 states, the rest of the world, and part of Alaska. Your side tries to lie that reporting the facts is a terrible personal attack, as a political attack.

my side? :laugh:

a personal attack is running with blog posts alleging that Palin faked her pregnancy and that Bristol was really the mother of Palin's 4 month old... a personal attack is implying that Palin is a bad mother because of her daughter's stupid actions or that it somehow calls into question abstinence education despite the fact that Alaskan schools do *not* teach abstinence-only sex-ed. putting Palin on a magazine cover with the headline of "sex, lies, and scandals" might be a personal attack.

reporting that Palin's 17 year-old daughter is pregnant not a personal attack, but how can you argue that they attempted to hide it? Bristol will be 7 months pregnant in the weeks running up to election and her family is going to be under a spotlight every day. how could they have thought that they were going to try and hide it?

 

[Craig234]

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY
:roll: Hello - the whole f'n point is that it wouldn't matter what she did - he wouldn't be impressed so it's stupid for him to post that since it's obvious. Now if he had actually had something to say about the topic it'd have been different but "unimpressed" is just lame commentary given his politics. It'd be like me saying I was "unimpressed" with BHO's future scheduled whatever.

Wrong. Just because he opposes her, doesn't mean that his views on her specific actions, statements, policies are things he should not post.

If tomorrow, Palin came out saying she is for amnesty for all Bush administration officials, he could say 'he's not impressed', and you would have no more reason to say his comments shouldn't be posted. While his comment was succinct, it was taking a side between the "her avoiding the media is bad" side and the cultists' "her avoiding the media is great because the media is evil and abused her child" side.

Your argument is based on his having said nothing more than that he opposes her as a candidate, when he was actually expressing his side for a particular issue.

The implication of your argument is that he'll disagree with ANYTHING she does, and I think that's wrong, and a false attack on him.

 

[Dari]

Outside of Fox News, anyone knows why the Republican Party loves ABC News?

 

[Stoneburner]

Originally posted by: Dari
Outside of Fox News, anyone knows why the Republican Party loves ABC News?

Mark Halperin?

 

[cliftonite]

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: Perknose

No other interviews are scheduled. It will be the first TV interview for Palin since she was named 10 days ago as running mate to John McCain.

Color me highly unimpressed so far. Time will tell how this all shakes out, though.

Boy, it's such a surprise to hear you(or any other leftist) say that. As if you'd be impressed no matter what she did. WAHHH.... she won't talk to the media.... WAHHHH... it'll just be softballs.... WAHH......

And its such a suprise to hear you (or any rightist/neocon) defend your ilk at all times.

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: Craig234

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY
:roll: Hello - the whole f'n point is that it wouldn't matter what she did - he wouldn't be impressed so it's stupid for him to post that since it's obvious. Now if he had actually had something to say about the topic it'd have been different but "unimpressed" is just lame commentary given his politics. It'd be like me saying I was "unimpressed" with BHO's future scheduled whatever.

Wrong. Just because he opposes her, doesn't mean that his views on her specific actions, statements, policies are things he should not post.

If tomorrow, Palin came out saying she is for amnesty for all Bush administration officials, he could say 'he's not impressed', and you would have no more reason to say his comments shouldn't be posted. While his comment was succinct, it was taking a side between the "her avoiding the media is bad" side and the cultists' "her avoiding the media is great because the media is evil and abused her child" side.

Your argument is based on his having said nothing more than that he opposes her as a candidate, when he was actually expressing his side for a particular issue.

The implication of your argument is that he'll disagree with ANYTHING she does, and I think that's wrong, and a false attack on him.

Read what he posted. Then read what I posted. It has NOTHING to do with policy - which is what you are trying to make this about. He stated he was unimpressed when responding to the fact that she is doing an ABC interview. Well, go figure - he's a DBS stricken liberal - ofcourse he's not going to be impressed that she's going to do an interview. But then again, it wouldn't make a difference what she has planned to do - he'd still not be impressed.
Now please actually READ instead of ASSume and then pull unrelated BS out of your ass.

 

[Craig234]

Originally posted by: Dari
Outside of Fox News, anyone knows why the Republican Party loves ABC News?

ABC News has some history of right-wing bias. Remember in the 2004 election, for example, how they aired the dishonest anti-Kerry movie.

link

It's not nearly as complete as Fox, of course; in fact, when Nightline was more a premier show with the clout to do especially independant reporting (I don't know the current status), Nightline exposed the swift-boat lies by sending a crew to the location of the famous Kerry battle in Vietnam, and interviewing eyewitnesses who confirmed Kerry's account. But it's part of the right-wing corporatized media, generally, and has numerous examples of problems.

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: cliftonite

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: Perknose

No other interviews are scheduled. It will be the first TV interview for Palin since she was named 10 days ago as running mate to John McCain.

Color me highly unimpressed so far. Time will tell how this all shakes out, though.

Boy, it's such a surprise to hear you(or any other leftist) say that. As if you'd be impressed no matter what she did. WAHHH.... she won't talk to the media.... WAHHHH... it'll just be softballs.... WAHH......

And its such a suprise to hear you (or any rightist/neocon) defend your ilk at all times.

😛 hey look, another clueless leftist pipes up to show his ignorance. 😛

 

[Craig234]

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Read what he posted. Then read what I posted.

Once was more than enough.

It has NOTHING to do with policy - which is what you are trying to make this about.

Of course it does, to the extent that her interacting with the media or not doing so is the policy of the campaign.

While it may not be 'public policy' like tax policy, it's still certainly ftting for commentary.

He stated he was unimpressed when responding to the fact that she is doing an ABC interview. Well, go figure - he's a DBS stricken liberal

And this is where you deteriorate into a RWDS yourself (right-wing derangement syndrome), and make it clear there's no rational discussion going to come from you.

of course he's not going to be impressed that she's going to do an interview. But then again, it wouldn't make a difference what she has planned to do - he'd still not be impressed.

You need to understand the idiom. It's not as if he was literally going to be impresses she did the interview, the point was that he was making was that the interview does not change his view that she is ignoring the media way too much. He could decide either way on the issue, despite your ASSumptions that he'll say anything she does is wrong.

 

[Craig234]

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: cliftonite

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: Perknose

No other interviews are scheduled. It will be the first TV interview for Palin since she was named 10 days ago as running mate to John McCain.

Color me highly unimpressed so far. Time will tell how this all shakes out, though.

Boy, it's such a surprise to hear you(or any other leftist) say that. As if you'd be impressed no matter what she did. WAHHH.... she won't talk to the media.... WAHHHH... it'll just be softballs.... WAHH......

And its such a suprise to hear you (or any rightist/neocon) defend your ilk at all times.

😛 hey look, another clueless leftist pipes up to show his ignorance. 😛

Another Sunday, another early awarding of the Irony of the Week award.

 

[Dari]

Originally posted by: Craig234

Originally posted by: Dari
Outside of Fox News, anyone knows why the Republican Party loves ABC News?

ABC News has some history of right-wing bias. Remember in the 2004 election, for example, how they aired the dishonest anti-Kerry movie.

link

It's not nearly as complete as Fox, of course; in fact, when Nightline was more a premier show with the clout to do especially independant reporting (I don't know the current status), Nightline exposed the swift-boat lies by sending a crew to the location of the famous Kerry battle in Vietnam, and interviewing eyewitnesses who confirmed Kerry's account. But it's part of the right-wing corporatized media, generally, and has numerous examples of problems.

I guess that's why they were so pro-Clinton during the primaries. I started watching ABC News when Peter Jennings was on and continued to do so out of habit. But after seeing the Bush interview earlier this year, I started to wonder if they were bias. All this confirms it and I will have to change to NBC.

 

[Craig234]

Originally posted by: loki8481

Originally posted by: Craig234

Originally posted by: loki8481
hid it? practically everyone knew in Alaska.

It was news to 49 states, the rest of the world, and part of Alaska. Your side tries to lie that reporting the facts is a terrible personal attack, as a political attack.

my side? :laugh:

The side you actually serve in your post, not the side you are going to so reluctantly vote for.

Your side in this case is the side defending Palin, arguing that since many people in Alaska knew before she was a candidate for VP, that there's it waasn't news for the nation.

My view is not that it was 'hidden' the way Cheney hides his energy committee notes, but that it was hidden for the period surrounding her announcement and the convention, so it wouldn't have any distraction from them, and they could announce it when they wanted, with whatever spin they wanted, instead of having left-wing bloggers dig up photos and make enough noice to force them to admit it early during the convention.

a personal attack is running with blog posts alleging that Palin faked her pregnancy and that Bristol was really the mother of Palin's 4 month old...

The new standard for a *blog* is that every citizen who says they believe anything has to be provably correct?

So, the 9/11 conspiractists arne't just wrong, they should not be able to post their views?

The people who post their 'research' on Obama's alleged education being Muslim-oriented for a period should not be able to post their views, unless they're provably true?

My view on that is that they have the right to do so; what makes me condemn them or not for the most part is whether they seem like 'honest mistakes' or not.

Did the evidence justify the speculation, or was it dishonestly hyped or misrepresented to creat a dishonest political attack?

Speculation is part of the legitimate political discussion. And that includes speculation that is wrong, as long as it's not wrong with a 'who cares it's wrong' attitude.

a personal attack is implying that Palin is a bad mother because of her daughter's stupid actions or that it somehow calls into question abstinence education despite the fact that Alaskan schools do *not* teach abstinence-only sex-ed. putting Palin on a magazine cover with the headline of "sex, lies, and scandals" might be a personal attack.

I have not seen anyone say Alaskan schools teach abstinence-only, but only that (accurately) Palin supports doing so. So, are you making that up?

reporting that Palin's 17 year-old daughter is pregnant not a personal attack, but how can you argue that they attempted to hide it? Bristol will be 7 months pregnant in the weeks running up to election and her family is going to be under a spotlight every day. how could they have thought that they were going to try and hide it?

Answered above. At least we agree that the reporting of the fact (and, hopefully, the raising of the issue to ask and present the evidence) were not personal attacks.

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: Craig234

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Read what he posted. Then read what I posted.

Once was more than enough.

It has NOTHING to do with policy - which is what you are trying to make this about.

Of course it does, to the extent that her interacting with the media or not doing so is the policy of the campaign.

While it may not be 'public policy' like tax policy, it's still certainly ftting for commentary.

He stated he was unimpressed when responding to the fact that she is doing an ABC interview. Well, go figure - he's a DBS stricken liberal

And this is where you deteriorate into a RWDS yourself (right-wing derangement syndrome), and make it clear there's no rational discussion going to come from you.

of course he's not going to be impressed that she's going to do an interview. But then again, it wouldn't make a difference what she has planned to do - he'd still not be impressed.

You need to understand the idiom. It's not as if he was literally going to be impresses she did the interview, the point was that he was making was that the interview does not change his view that she is ignoring the media way too much. He could decide either way on the issue, despite your ASSumptions that he'll say anything she does is wrong.

lol, can't just admit you overplayed it... Sheesh. I've read some BS on this board but your attempts at trying to make this out to something more than it was has been quite entertaining. If you were honest, you'd just admit you overplayed it...but you won't.

Also, this liberal whining about her not hopping on every press show instantly is nothing but political BS. It's been all of 9 days with half of them being Convention days. I think you libs are trying to make an issue where there is none....just like usual.

 

[Craig234]

Originally posted by: quest55720

Originally posted by: Craig234

No, she hid her daughter's pregnancy, it got exposed, it's done. You are making dishonest excuses for her not facing the media. If it's such an issue she has to hide, she can resign.

Imagine Obama or Biden going into hiding because one (true) story about their personal life was printed.

There is a big difference between hiding and wanting to keep the affairs of a MINOR child private. The Obama/Pelosi attack arm went to far and now will pay the price with limited access. Any reporter who piled on the attacks should never be granted an interview with her. It is time some one stand up to the scum of the MSM who will do anything to push the Pelosi/Obama agenda.

So, some Palin defenders say "her pregnancy will show soon, they can't possibly have wanted to hide it", and you say they wanted to hide the minor's private situation. OK then.

You're lying when you say the Obama/Pelosi attack arm was behind this - first because the issue can be pretty directly traced to the citizens who found the photos and raised the issue, with no evidence and no reasonable case that Obama's campaign was involved, not to mention his official position, and second, because you have 'PDS', Pelosi derangement syndrome, your irrational fear of the woman and San Francisco, and it causing you to try to link her where she's not involved. She has her own things to do.

The fact of the pregnancy is a legitimate news story. Your calling for punishing reporters who reported it is wrong, irrational, anti-free speech, anti-democracy.

The rest of your comments about the right-wing corporate MSM as being puppets of 'Obama/Pelosi' pushes you well over into the nutty fringe cult.

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: Craig234

Originally posted by: loki8481

Originally posted by: Craig234

Originally posted by: loki8481
hid it? practically everyone knew in Alaska.

It was news to 49 states, the rest of the world, and part of Alaska. Your side tries to lie that reporting the facts is a terrible personal attack, as a political attack.

my side? :laugh:

The side you actually serve in your post, not the side you are going to so reluctantly vote for.

Your side in this case is the side defending Palin, arguing that since many people in Alaska knew before she was a candidate for VP, that there's it waasn't news for the nation.

My view is not that it was 'hidden' the way Cheney hides his energy committee notes, but that it was hidden for the period surrounding her announcement and the convention, so it wouldn't have any distraction from them, and they could announce it when they wanted, with whatever spin they wanted, instead of having left-wing bloggers dig up photos and make enough noice to force them to admit it early during the convention.

a personal attack is running with blog posts alleging that Palin faked her pregnancy and that Bristol was really the mother of Palin's 4 month old...

The new standard for a *blog* is that every citizen who says they believe anything has to be provably correct?

So, the 9/11 conspiractists arne't just wrong, they should not be able to post their views?

The people who post their 'research' on Obama's alleged education being Muslim-oriented for a period should not be able to post their views, unless they're provably true?

My view on that is that they have the right to do so; what makes me condemn them or not for the most part is whether they seem like 'honest mistakes' or not.

Did the evidence justify the speculation, or was it dishonestly hyped or misrepresented to creat a dishonest political attack?

Speculation is part of the legitimate political discussion. And that includes speculation that is wrong, as long as it's not wrong with a 'who cares it's wrong' attitude.

a personal attack is implying that Palin is a bad mother because of her daughter's stupid actions or that it somehow calls into question abstinence education despite the fact that Alaskan schools do *not* teach abstinence-only sex-ed. putting Palin on a magazine cover with the headline of "sex, lies, and scandals" might be a personal attack.

I have not seen anyone say Alaskan schools teach abstinence-only, but only that (accurately) Palin supports doing so. So, are you making that up?

reporting that Palin's 17 year-old daughter is pregnant not a personal attack, but how can you argue that they attempted to hide it? Bristol will be 7 months pregnant in the weeks running up to election and her family is going to be under a spotlight every day. how could they have thought that they were going to try and hide it?

Answered above. At least we agree that the reporting of the fact (and, hopefully, the raising of the issue to ask and present the evidence) were not personal attacks.

wow, that's quite the spin and backpedal on the "hiding".... have you stopped rotating yet?

 

[Craig234]

Originally posted by: Dari

Originally posted by: Craig234

Originally posted by: Dari
Outside of Fox News, anyone knows why the Republican Party loves ABC News?

ABC News has some history of right-wing bias. Remember in the 2004 election, for example, how they aired the dishonest anti-Kerry movie.

link

It's not nearly as complete as Fox, of course; in fact, when Nightline was more a premier show with the clout to do especially independant reporting (I don't know the current status), Nightline exposed the swift-boat lies by sending a crew to the location of the famous Kerry battle in Vietnam, and interviewing eyewitnesses who confirmed Kerry's account. But it's part of the right-wing corporatized media, generally, and has numerous examples of problems.

I guess that's why they were so pro-Clinton during the primaries. I started watching ABC News when Peter Jennings was on and continued to do so out of habit. But after seeing the Bush interview earlier this year, I started to wonder if they were bias. All this confirms it and I will have to change to NBC.

I don't watch them much for a while now and can't comment on the 'Clinton bias', but I'll note two things that support it that are not left-wing bias, but corporatist bias:

- Bill Clinton was hardly anti-corporate - he supported the terrible "Telecommunications Act of 1996" big media wanted. Hillary's backgorund includes director of *Wal-Mart*.

- It was looking very likely Hillary would win the primary, and the election given the public's mood on Bush. So getting on her side was 'good business'.

 

[Craig234]

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY
[ If you were honest, you'd just admit you overplayed it...but you won't.

You're lying in your attack, and as a result we're done. You crossed a line.

 

[lupi]

And until the messiah went before billo, what was his interviewer list :roll:

 

[Craig234]

Originally posted by: lupi
And until the messiah went before billo, what was his interviewer list :roll:

Very long, to the point that even liberals were writing articles about 'Obama fatigue'.

 

[Stoneburner]

Joe Biden just had his 42nd appearance on meet the press 🙂

Palin? She's busy fending off the dirty old man's advances 🙂

 

[Perknose]

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: Craig234

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: Perknose

No other interviews are scheduled. It will be the first TV interview for Palin since she was named 10 days ago as running mate to John McCain.

Color me highly unimpressed so far. Time will tell how this all shakes out, though.

Boy, it's such a surprise to hear you(or any other leftist) say that. As if you'd be impressed no matter what she did. WAHHH.... she won't talk to the media.... WAHHHH... it'll just be softballs.... WAHH......

So, if Obama came out for legalizing crack tomorrow, any criticism you posted could be negated by saying "Boy, it's such a surprise to hear you say that".

That's a non-argument, a throwaway personal comment as if stating he's not in favor of Palin means his reasons are not worth discussing. You are sure good at political chat.

But you go downhill from there - the "WAHHH" "WAHH" 'argument', now that really answers his point.

"WAHHH" can have a place in pointing our whining, *if* the fact there's whining is proven. You can't and you don't. You just whine. WAAAHHHHH.

:roll: Hello - the whole f'n point is that it wouldn't matter what she did - he wouldn't be impressed so it's stupid for him to post that since it's obvious. Now if he had actually had something to say about the topic it'd have been different but "unimpressed" is just lame commentary given his politics. It'd be like me saying I was "unimpressed" with BHO's future scheduled whatever.

Excuse me, MR. "whole f'n point" but finally agreeing to one softball interview 10 days later IS unimpressive, a point that is totally supported by the facts.

If you can show any other VP or Pres. candidate in modern American history gave NO interviews whatsoever for the first 10 days of their candidacy, then you would begin to have a point.

But you can't. Your whole position against me in this thread is bankrupt.

In any event, AS I SAID, time will tell how this whole shakes out and if she will subsequently be shielded like a Quayle tard or if she will take her rightful place in the give and take and free flow of information during our election process.

Let me remind you, that I DID HAVE SOMETHING TO SAY ABOUT THE TOPIC and it was supportable by the known facts, whereas your contribution was nothing but a red faced ad hom based on your arrogant imaginary belief that YOU can somehow know that nothing Gov. Palin could ever do would impress me.

What a valuable contribution to the thread on your part, a BS ad hom. What an utter and complete bullshit peddler you once again showed yourself to be. :|

Here's something Gov. Palin could do that would impress me. She could state that she will in no way let her fundamentalist religious beliefs ever dictate her public policy decisions.

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: Craig234

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY
[ If you were honest, you'd just admit you overplayed it...but you won't.

You're lying in your attack, and as a result we're done. You crossed a line.

Oh and now you're just going to claim "done". 😛 Sure, I crossed a line...the line that people cross when they call out your BS. You over played it and got called, I'm sorry you can't handle that but I'm not surprised you can't.

 

[Craig234]

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: Craig234

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY
[ If you were honest, you'd just admit you overplayed it...but you won't.

You're lying in your attack, and as a result we're done. You crossed a line.

Oh and now you're just going to claim "done". 😛 Sure, I crossed a line...the line that people cross when they call out your BS. You over played it and got called, I'm sorry you can't handle that but I'm not surprised you can't.

The line where you make a baseless, offensive attack that's dishonest, period.

That's the reason, not your lying here to try to say it's something else. Shoo, pest.

The only discussion now after your wrong (since you lack the character to apologize) will be a repetition of your saying BS, and my either not responding or repeating this post.