• 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!

Vanity Fair: Sarah Palin the Sound and the Fury

Status
Not open for further replies.
hazlnut said:
How does it address two?? --
Click to expand...

I'm just going to assume there's a literacy issue here and that you aren't THIS patently dishonest. It's the only way I can transmute my disgust with your antics to sympathy and maintain any sort of respect for you as a human being. :shrug:
 
haymarket said:
It seems that both the lovers of Ms. Palin and those who loathe her would be very happy if she won the 2012 Republican nomination for President. Interesting how that has happened.
Click to expand...

Actually, I would hate to see her get nominated for 2012. I want Obama out way more than I want to risk the campaign for her sake.
 
It was a good article. It seems there were two or three factual inaccuracies in it, unsurprisingly in an article of what must be around 10,000 words and several hundred checkable facts. It doesn't paint a pretty picture, but it doesn't portray a monster either. The woman seems to be making good on her celebrity, but I do hope to God the American people don't seriously intend to elect her to national office. She just doesn't seem qualified, and I didn't need a Vanity Fair article to tell me that.
 
Jallman offered this observation

Actually, I would hate to see her get nominated for 2012. I want Obama out way more than I want to risk the campaign for her sake.
Click to expand...

Is it then fair to conclude from this post that you agree that Palin in 2012 would be a disaster for the GOP and may even rival the Republican loss of 1964 when they nominated Barry Goldwater?
 
jallman said:
I'm just going to assume there's a literacy issue here and that you aren't THIS patently dishonest. It's the only way I can transmute my disgust with your antics to sympathy and maintain any sort of respect for you as a human being. :shrug:
Click to expand...

Why did you cut off the rest of my explanation--in which I detailed why I believe that post #14 is not what you say it is.

Did you want to address the reasons I gave?

If not, that's fine, but don't pretend I didn't give reasons why I think you and RightNYC have produced nothing substantial.
 
haymarket said:
Jallman offered this observation



Is it then fair to conclude from this post that you agree that Palin in 2012 would be a disaster for the GOP and may even rival the Republican loss of 1964 when they nominated Barry Goldwater?
Click to expand...

I think it would be a disaster but not because of Palin herself or her policy record.
 
hazlnut said:
Why did you cut off the rest of my explanation--
Click to expand...

Because the rest of your explanation was nothing but more of your blathering and sputtering out excuses for why the truth shouldn't be acknowledged when it's inconvenient to your pursuit of peddling more bull****.
 
jallman said:
Because the rest of your explanation was nothing but more of your blathering and sputtering out excuses for why the truth shouldn't be acknowledged when it's inconvenient to your pursuit of peddling more bull****.
Click to expand...

Could you be more specific?

1 - an anecdote has been told different ways by different sources...

2 - a writer admits to misidentifying a child and issues a correction...

Am I missing something?
 
jallman said:
No, you are intentionally ignoring it.
Click to expand...


I'll try one last time.

hazlnut said:
Could you be more specific?

1 - an anecdote has been told different ways by different sources...

2 - a writer admits to misidentifying a child and issues a correction...

Am I missing something?
Click to expand...

You said something about intentionally ignoring...??:confused::(

Did you want to comment or... not comment.
 
jallman said:
You're never going to convince me to capitulate to your dishonesty no matter how many times you try.
Click to expand...

I've given you several opportunities to comment or further clarify what the issue is with the two points in post #14.

You are choosing not to.

Not sure why, but what more can I do?
 
Moderator's Warning:
We are running around in circles here and it has reached the level of pointless. So to save our sanity and what in all likelihood infractions, I'm closing this thread.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom