Yes I would. It’s a bunch of bullshit semantic crap. Palin is being attacked because her daughter is pregnant. It is being used as an issue against her. I spoke imprecisely, but doubtless you know what I meant.
No, because what you said was entirely different. It wasn’t just “imprecise,” it was flat-out wrong. Backpedal all you want, but it’s right there in black-and-white (well, black-and-really-really-light-grey) for everyone to see.
Dude, I’m running out of bookmarks. Can you please try to be a little less hilarious? Kthx.
I’m neither for or agin Ms. Palin – haven’t had the TV on for most of a week, and listened to minimal radio – but these are pretty weak:
It may be “virtually unheard of” in Wasilla, but it is very common in administration changes in federal, state, and local government that high-level personnel are replaced by people preferred by the new incumbent. It is understood that the Executive should not be expected to work with people who are hostile to him or her. Happens all the time, and there’s not a thing unethical or hinky about it. Both as an assistant attorney general (state level) and a deputy prosecutor (county level), I understood that when my boss (AG or county attorney) lost the election and was replaced, any of us, or all of us, could be let go, because we served at his/her pleasure. Now I was too small potatoes to ever have the axe fall on me, but most senior staff were replaced, every time.
Oh noes! She upset their traditional ways! Again, it is very common, in the private sector as well as in government but especially in government, that media inquiries are handled in a coordinated manner by a designated (high-ranking) person, and everyone else is told they are not to talk to the media. I never had the right to comment on work-related public business when I worked for government; I would have been fired had I done so.
And frankly I think the Times is well aware of how common these items are, which is why it is carefully (if weaselly-ly) specifying that one is “virtually unheard-of in Wasilla” and the other is “local tradition.”
So she did, in fact, cut her own salary, which is what she said she would do. And for all we know a city administrator was badly needed and the Times would be criticizing her for bad management if she’d failed to hire one.
Burn the witch if you want, but this load of wood is wet.
You didn’t speak at all; you provided two links without comment to a question that reads as follows:
I Shirley don’t know what you meant, unless it was to indicate that the linked articles, you know, attacked Mrs. Palin’s daughter.
You know, this thread, being rather late to the party and concerning what to me is a less than earth-shattering issue, is indeed a bit lame, but I don’t see why you seem to feel that gives you licence to behave like an utter jackass. Thanks very much for generating still more worthless partisan noise. We sure need more of that around here.
BTW, I don’t give a rat’s ass whether her daughter is pregnant or not.
Attempting to you use your inability to understand something as a rhetorical point is the classical fallacy of the argument from ignorance, and your mischaracterization is a gratuitous ad hominem also devoid of rhetorical value.
Such as this thread (and your own post) requires one to drop to the level of one’s opponents in order to communicate (example to follow.)
Fuck me? Oh no no, my son. Fuck you.
That’s fine. I didn’t really expect you you to stop being a jackass, but it was worth a shot anyway. Do carry on.
Yes. You meant that people were attacking Bristol Palin for being pregnant. We await cites…
Ummm, dude . . . we know she fired the librarian for “not fully supporting her” after she was told no.
This thread is a classic example of why I almost feel like a troll just for posting something that the usual wingnuts will disagree with; they all come creeping out of the woodwork, right on cue, and seem to get in line to spew the most hilariously inane garbage of wingnut desperation. It does a heart good to see how little changes.
Well, IMO, in this thread at least, you’re King of the Wingnut Parade. It was a pretty weak OP, and saying so doesn’t make your opponents crazy or their opinions garbage. At least, they’re no more crazy than you are, and their opinions no more or less worthless.
you heard it here first, if you have a problem with people banning books, you are king of the wingnut parade.
Huh huh huh. I know my load of wood got wet.
No, if you just link to a NYTimes article, you’re king of the wingnuts. I should probably have looked for a better source.
Yeah, becuase that’s *exactly * what I said. :rolleyes:
I have not, but I have seen Spiro Agnew in a teddy.
Anyway, regarding the OP, what it sounds like actually happened is that Palin raised the subject of banning books from the library as a sort of loyalty test. “Would you ban a book if I told you to? No? You’re fired.” The fact that no specific titles were ever named, and that she never followed through and attempted to remove anything from the library seems to support this. Doesn’t really speak well of her personally, but it’s not really an Assault on Our Civil Liberties, and in terms of general scumminess, it doesn’t really stand out from the usual level of political sleaze we expect from our elected representatives. I’m much more disturbed by her creationism and opposition to the concept of church and state than I am by her small-town government reindeer games.
Hmm. I open a thread to become informed of a serious offence that would have changed my mind about Palin. Instead, I find the charge to be totally unfounded and that the OP lied.
Now I’m wondering if there is a rule against lying ?
Does it come under trolling?
Can lissener be banned for this ?
Please. please I’m not calling for lissener’s banning but merely making an inquiry.
“Will you do ANYTHING I ask of you, no matter how morally or legally ambiguous or wrong it is?” Is one of the few things that scares me more than banning books. Especially when you get axed if the answer is No. There are otherwise harmless parental groups who try to ban books all the time, but obsession with loyalty has a track record of being very dangerous.
Ok, so we can agree that you view lissener as king of the wingnuts.
You also say that his OP was weak. From your response above, I assume that the quality of his OP is not the deciding factor regarding his status among wingnuts.
We do know that your opinion is based solely on this thread, as you stated that plainly. The only other behavior you describe is his calling other people crazy.
So is it your position that calling someone else’s opinion crazy makes one king of the wingnuts parade?
Yeah, the whole book banning thing is much hype, little substance. I’m much more upset that she’s pro-jury nullification. Last thing I want is another administration that views the rule of law as optional.