I’m curious to know how you’re so certain of this.
It’s true that Track was born eight months, almost to the day, after their marriage. But pregnancies lasting eight months or less account for about 13 percent of births in the United States.
What makes you so confident here?
Or is it, again, the fact that since it’s Palin, no evidence is necessary?
So Bricker buys a one in 8 ratio as positive, yet SH1BU1 is wrong for bring suspicious about it. She would lose a trial with those odds.
I respect Sarah Palin and subscribe to her standards that no evidence is necessary when making serious allegations. Somewhat after the time Obama was palling around with terrorists, and before he proposed Death Panels, Sarah eloped when a pregnancy test would come back positive for a baby born when Track was.
Yeees, and the only reason he said it was to pull the rug from under anyone who’d try to out him first. Which (he figured) they were obviously going to, else he wouldn’t have said it.
Or perhaps you think he was going for the crackhead vote ? No, that’d be silly of him - Marion Barry has that shit locked tight.
Ha ! Joke’s on you: I don’t like or support anyone !
In the old thread, Diogenes was firmly of the belief that of all things the Right would care about, it’s that Palin slept with a black man. For much the same reason as he thought this, most news media sources also believed it, and are trumpeting it up.
In practical terms, this is like Democrats thinking that if they talked up the fact that Bush lied about WMD, that it would whip the other side into an equal fury. The fact is that the right doesn’t care if there was inflated evidence of WMD, if the end result is that the US military goes out and executes a genocidal dictator. Killing genocidal dictators just isn’t a crying shame. On the other hand, the Right would have cared that our military spending was setting us up for an extended recession. But the news media didn’t go out with that message, and so didn’t accomplish anything.
The right isn’t racist, and 90% of them are fully aware that people don’t stay abstinent when they date, that they have one-night stands before they get married, etc. But everyone in the nation is stead-fast that you don’t cheat on your spouse, short of being the victim of spousal abuse. Palin is also, apparently, accused of this and yet the media doesn’t care because they think that they’ll get more traction with the other bit of trivia.
Basically, if you understood why your enemy is your enemy, i.e. how and why he thinks that is different from you, then you wouldn’t be enemies. Because you are enemies and don’t understand each other, your attempts to influence his thinking will necessarily fail. That Palin slept with a basketball player is only interesting to Democrats, and only because they think Republicans will care. They will not.
Some of the freepers are claiming the rice thing is a lie, so it seems like they’re a little anxious about the idea of Sarah-Barracuda riding the anaconda.
And of course not all people on the right are racist. But I’d imagine that of the people who support Sarah Palin, racists are over-represented.
Well so? You’ve succeeded in reaching a few minority, extremist groups on the right side. How is that more effective than reaching the majority, mainstream of the party?
How dare you assert that, without a signed and notorized statement from every member of the “I support Sarah Palin for Prez” Party!! I’m outraged.
Who is “the media” in this sentence. Here’s the CNN article on the book that appears first when I search for McGuinniss on the CNN webpage. The basketball player gets a pretty short blurb in the 19th paragraph (and the author characterizes it as a gossipy tidbit).
On MSNBC, the first article(again the first search result) mentions the basketball player, but not his race.
Here’s the NYT review of the book mentions the episode with the basketball player mainly to make the author look like a jerk.
Some blogs and SD posters might be fixated on the race thing, but I don’t really see much evidence thats true of the “media”.
From the excerpt/synopsis that I read about this, race is pertinent. The claim is that Palin went on and on to her friends about how she can’t believe that she slept with a black man and that she never should have done that, largely because Rice happened to be black. Rice confirmed that they slept together but expressed surprise with the race part of the allegations. He said that they had occasional friendly phone conversations from time to time for a while afterwards.
The people at FOX are upset about… the wombshifter.
Just keepin’ the thread up to date.
The ones responsible for Prop 8 in California? Or did you mean more west?
That explains why there are so few social conservatives in Utah. 
Nowadays, the minority extremists are the mainstream of the party.
Perhaps, my only source of news is the SD. If that’s really the top results from Google, then I’d agree that this is a SDMB phenomenon, rather than a news media one.
I think race is a factor in this “story” (scare quotes intended). First, I think everyone knew that her and Todd were getting it on before they were married, but that could be handwaived away as being consistent with her (professed? implied?) moral values that sex is meant for a husband and wife. So, they started a bit early but they knew they were the ones for each other or some such thing.
Now, if you throw in that she slept with a basketball player (white or black) for a one night stand while reporting then that takes her sexual habits from professed into hypocrisy. She didn’t know Rice, wasn’t in love with him, didn’t see a future, etc., it was just casual sex. This is something that cannot be reconciled with her current views on abstinence.
I think race comes into it because, again, there is that Magic Johnson/Wilt Chamberlain image left over from basketball and it makes Sarah Palin look like a groupie whore. And of course for the true, true diehard racists, it makes Sarah Palin a nigger’s groupie whore.
In other words, a significant non-zero portion of the population looks down upon a white girl for having sex with a black guy. Those people are likely to be older and more conservative: a demographic that would most likely support Palin, and therefore be turned off by this revelation. (Note the converse is not true. If you support Palin, it doesn’t make you a racist.)
Anyways, no credence should be given to this book without any further evidence. Politics is a nasty game, and allegations should not be taken as true without something else to go on.
Yeah, like that whole “palling around with terrorists” business. Maybe Sarah should have thought of that back in 2008 when she was slinging around allegations. The sword cuts both ways.
Agree and disagree. Sarah knew that politics would be a dirty business, so she has to grow a thick skin over this.
“Palling around with terrorists” is a bit over the top, but a legitimate spin on Obama’s relationship with Ayers.
If Palin had said that Obama had a one night stand with Britany Spears, that might be a little closer.
[/Bill Clinton]Ahh… I miss the perks.[/BC]
Has Sarah Palin ever stated that she opposes any sex before marriage? I know a lot of her followers feel that way, but has she ever said anything like that? She opposed “explicit” sex education, but later said that she didn’t think that meant talking about condoms and birth control. As far as I know, she’s okay with pre-marital sex between adults. I’m a little concerned that the word “hypocrisy” is coming to mean “I hate that person.”