Talk:Sarah Palin/Archive1

Governor of Alaska? I wonder what's her stance is regarding oil drilling in Alaska's Natural Parks. Editor at CP^{Liar at RP!} 10:55, 29 August 2008 (EDT)

Honestly, that was one of the very first things I thought of too. --Edgerunner⁷⁶_{Your views are intriguing to me and I wish to subscribe to your newsletter} 10:56, 29 August 2008 (EDT)

It seems Bondurant already answered. Editor at CP^{Liar at RP!} 10:57, 29 August 2008 (EDT)

"I get frustrated with folks from outside Alaska who come up and say you shouldn't develop your resources," she says. Alaska needs to be self-sufficient, she says, instead of relying heavily on "federal dollars," as the state does today.[1] --Toiretni 12:42, 29 August 2008 (EDT)

Ok, I'm now officially an Obama supporter _{(not that there were any doubt anyway)}. Editor at CP^{Liar at RP!} 12:47, 29 August 2008 (EDT)

Yeah, I heard about here, looked her up on Wikipedia, and realized "wow... wtf were they thinking? Were they afraid that McCain would alienate moderate voters or something?" Seriously... she's more whacko than McCain on the right-wing. I agree with you entirely E@CP... it's like, wtf? Was I not thinking of voting for Obama before? Did I really need the help to make up my mind? I'm almost wondering what my parents think as they would likely drink the CP Kool-aide. --Eira ^omtg! The Goat be praised. 01:49, 3 September 2008 (EDT)

She wears a really big flag pin. tmtoulouse ^nettle 12:30, 29 August 2008 (EDT)

She supports teaching evolution and intelligent design? Is RW smearing too now or is that just the best kept secret ever? I do not appreciate the tone of this article. Sarah Palin is an extremely popular and effective governor here, and the "investigations" she is under are generally regarded as minor. ɧєɭıסş^{-get sunburn!} 23:49, 29 August 2008 (EDT)

I agree, this whole article is offensive and horrible misrepresents a productive and kind governor. She is a fresh breath of air in a stale and corrupt government.The Alien^{Sick Freak!!!} 00:20, 30 August 2008 (EDT)

While I don't think RationalWiki as a site really excels at breaking news political biographies, and so really only marginally care about this (it is not really niche material). I would say that the creationist stuff comes from direct quotes out of her mouth. tmtoulouse ^nettle 00:25, 30 August 2008 (EDT)

What might be a nice breath of fresh air in the corrupt world of Alaskan politics, is not necessarily a sane position for how the rest of us are supposed to live. I say this as a resident of another "small" (population-wise) state. ħuman 00:44, 30 August 2008 (EDT)

I would think that corruption is corruption. There is a difference in the faces in national politics, but that doesn't make them any less corrupt. But possibly I didn't understand what you meant.The Alien^{Sick Freak!!!} 01:08, 30 August 2008 (EDT)

And she is corrupt? Often a crook in a small state can be a "reformer", but when the light of day is shon(e) on them.... ħuman 01:11, 30 August 2008 (EDT)

Not quiet sure what you are looking for here, an ultra-conservative, ultra-fundamentalist is not going to be seen in a favorable light by the majority of the RationalWiki community. The article is pretty low priority as far things go around here, but if you want to improve the article go ahead. Just be prepared with sources and understand there is very little common ground between most us and Palin. tmtoulouse ^nettle 01:12, 30 August 2008 (EDT)

She is, after all, really into creationism... ħuman 01:14, 30 August 2008 (EDT)

Yeah, I mean... sources? God, we have sources for Ann Coulter and that article is still mostly a hate fest... Seriously, do people come here thinking they're getting an unbiased point of view? We're the opposition to Conservapedia... anyone who has crazy nutso ideas like creationism, anti-abortion, etc etc etc isn't going to be handled very well. I mean, she said that if her own daughter were RAPED that she would force her to have the child anyways. WTF kind of role model is that supposed to be? The protection of life at all costs? Even against spontaneous abortion? Remember, "God" aborts about one fourth of all pregnancies before they even implant.^{wild ass guess!} Who cares if we get a little more picky. Seriously though, McCain didn't appeal to the middle ground before... and now they added her? Is the religious right THAT bat-shit insane? --Eira ^omtg! The Goat be praised. 01:57, 3 September 2008 (EDT)��

It appears that her 5th child, born very recently, has down syndrome. She has been hailed as preserving conservative values because she knew beforehand that the child had down syndrome, but didn't abort. This makes her look like she upholds conservative values in the face of adversity. Because she chose not to abort, she looks very good to conservatives.......who don't look at the situation very well. If she was truly anti-abortion, why did she get the test that showed her child to have down syndrome in the first place?? It is my theory that many, many of the voters that she / McCain cannot think things through very well. On the surface, knowing the child had down syndrome and not aborting looks satisfyingly conservative, while not knowing beforehand and having a child with down syndrome just looks unlucky. Therefore, to look conservative in case something were to go wrong, she got the test, and can now brag about it. (Of course there may be some other reason for getting the test, i'm just theorizing here.) BUT my main point is how it would have been "truly" more conservative to not get the test at all, and that many people will fail to notice this. Thoughts, rationalwikians? ŖєuĻєux^{say wнäτ?} 14:00, 30 August 2008 (EDT)

Isn't the sort of test (or battery of tests) that would reveal that pretty standard prenatal care these days? With the only real "option" usually being the tell me/don't tell me the baby's gender type thing? ħuman 18:50, 30 August 2008 (EDT)

Yeah, they're pretty much standard. Also, you would generally want to know any congenital problems beforehand, so that you would be able to plan accordingly. If you know that your baby has Down syndrome before they're actually born, you can plan for their care accordingly, as opposed to being rudely surprised and getting caught unprepared. --λινυσ^(☮) 19:02, 30 August 2008 (EDT)

Ah, thanks for the input, RW. I must stress that I did no research on prenatal testing before I commented, and perhaps got carried away with the "republicans are sneaky" bit :P:P many thanks ŖєuĻєux^{say wнäτ?} 23:09, 30 August 2008 (EDT)

Well if its any consolation, the prenatal screening for Down Syndrome was only performed on women who were 35 or older before 2006; it wasn't even offered to women below the age of 35. It's 3-4 tests, followed by an amnio if it's positive. Has a 5% false-positive rate. So, points for trying? --CS^{impacted with knowledge} 04:07, 1 September 2008 (EDT)

State Trooper "scandal"

My understanding is that the guy in question had shot his 10-year-old son with a Taser, been caught drinking in a patrol car, beat his wife, and then threatened to shoot her father or something? How is trying to get him fired scandalous? --λινυσ^(☮) 19:13, 30 August 2008 (EDT)

Family "tree" scandal

The Enquirer has picked it up, it must be true. ħuman 23:32, 30 August 2008 (EDT)

Turns out to be quite different. Interesting, and impressive of how well those "values" work in practice? Seriously. ħuman 02:03, 3 September 2008 (EDT)

Um... I'm confused... do you have any links to online versions of paranews? --Eira ^omtg! The Goat be praised. 02:26, 3 September 2008 (EDT)

First garbage: over the weekend, people were saying that her fifth brat was actually her daughter's. On account of the daughter's baby-tummy, and her svelteness, etc. Turns out Bristol is pregnant, but with a fresh Palin/Hockey Hair brat. I'd add links, but they are all over the place, and I didn't bookmark any. ħuman 02:32, 3 September 2008 (EDT)

More scary than John McCain?

Looking at this from afar, I must say that she looks a lot more scary (politically) than Mr McCain.--Bob^{bing up} 16:37, 4 September 2008 (EDT)

That was the goal, to use the VP to balance the ticket, and she's done that. Many conservatives were tepid about supporting John McCain due to some of his positions that were more in agreement with liberals, but they're now a little more reassured that he'll pick more pro-Republican cabinet positions.

There's also the gambit to balance the ticket in the other direction at the same time... to extend a welcome to Hillary voters. Trying to balance the ticket in both directions is ambitious, but it could pay off if some of this "OMG John McCain didn't spend any time vetting her" stuff blows over. --Toiretni 16:43, 4 September 2008 (EDT)

Bob M: Definitely. John McCain was fairly level-headed and thoughtful at the start of his campaign, even if he is a conservative. Until he named Palin as his running mate, I wouldn't really have minded if he'd been elected. <font=""; face="Comic Sans MS">Jellyfish!^{That isn't science, that's Pac-Man!} 16:47, 4 September 2008 (EDT)

Yes, that was my sort of feeling. Would have preferred Obama, but he didn't look too weird. But now. What if he passes on and she gets the big job?--Bob^{bing up} 16:52, 4 September 2008 (EDT)

I know *shudder* It doesn't bear thinking about. It's this kind of thing that makes me thankful I don't live in the US. <font=""; face="Comic Sans MS">Jellyfish!^{That isn't science, that's Pac-Man!} 16:54, 4 September 2008 (EDT)

I honestly just don't see it as a successful balance... I mean, sure there were a lot of Conservapedians who would have been alienated, but seriously... do we REALLY need to pander to the neo-con crazies of the world? I suppose that the republicans believe so. However, please... I may just be a socialist, but McCain offended me at the very start, and I was surprised that Conservapedia described him as "not conservative enough". I mean, looking at his policies, even libertarians should be entirely distressed by him, because he thinks that our society would be better off in Christians ran everything... kill the gays, kill the lesbians, you know... the typical crap. I was already ready to leave and run off to Germany if McCain won, and now the situation is just even more worse. I almost can't even bear to watch, unless it's Obama winning by the largest landslide in US history. --Eira ^omtg! The Goat be praised. 17:03, 5 September 2008 (EDT)

McCain was "not conservative enough" precisely because in the past he has spoken out against the fundy loons. He made amends with them during the primaries, but it wasn't enough, so the fundy wing of the party forced this wingnut on him. Hopefully they will regret it. I made my first $25 donation to Obama within 24 hours of her speech, to help make a point. ħuman 19:01, 5 September 2008 (EDT)

Well, again, I may just be a socialist and working on a different scale... but I do hope that the conservatives realize that they're shooting themselves in the foot... at least I am hoping that they are... if they aren't and this turns out to be the perfect strategy to win the election in the USA for president, then well... I certainly don't want to stay here. --Eira ^omtg! The Goat be praised. 19:18, 5 September 2008 (EDT)

Eira: // I mean, looking at his policies, even libertarians should be entirely distressed by him, because he thinks that our society would be better off in Christians ran everything...

What's this "even libertarians" stuff? Why would a Libt vote for a non-Libt anymore than a Liberal would vote for a non-Liberal? I cannot understand how anyone informed about politics could have such strange ideas about Libertarians.

It would do you good just to drop in on an actual meeting of Libertarians, maybe when they're having a few drinks, listen to their conversations, etc. If you mill around the room you will discover Atheists, Agnostics, Christians, Jews, Gays, Straights -- with NOBODY getting bent out of shape concerning somebody else's faith opr lifestyle. Tolerance is our watchword.

The vast majority of people I meet are Libertarians... it seems to be FAR more common in the US than socialism. And I know "libts", as you call them, are into social rights... my point is that conservatives aren't. --Eira ^omtg! The Goat be praised. 03:24, 6 September 2008 (EDT)

This idea that anybody, including Christians, want a Theocracy is crazy and paranoid. Both Obama and McCain claim Christianity as their faith -- maybe you should vote for Bob Barr -- you surely don't believe he wants a Theocracy.

I actually intend to vote for Brian Moore, because not only does he believe in social rights, but he believes that corporations are essentially able to exploit users in any way that they want, and that companies should operate for use, not for profit. The "invisible hand of competition" actually forgets that it's actually better for everyone to work together as a block. OPEC works as a block to guarantee higher prices of oil, the same as american corporations would love to do the same. Yet, corporations with their "make a profit at all costs" attitude actively opposes workers from banding together in the same way. Heck, the corporation itself is a band of people together for a common interest, and grats they're going to step on the worker as much as they want. --Eira ^omtg! The Goat be praised. 03:24, 6 September 2008 (EDT)

// ... kill the gays, kill the lesbians, you know... the typical crap.

Where do you get this stuff? Is this actually what you think non-Liberals believe? Is this really what CP is about?

No, that's not what I think non-Liberals believe... certainly not Libertarians who are just as much for social rights as I am. However, Conservatives and Totalitarians in the extreme take this point of view. Maybe not as extreme as I make it (especially in today's society) but it's still there. --Eira ^omtg! The Goat be praised. 03:24, 6 September 2008 (EDT)

I've read that some Moslem countries do this kind of stuff (Sharia Law maybe?) and that Castro does kill gays and lesbians, but i don't know anybody in my extended circle of acquaintances that holds such views. Nor can i think of any countries whose citizens are free even HINTING at this idea.

-- Rem^Beau 00:29, 6 September 2008 (EDT)

// ... but I do hope that the conservatives realize that they're shooting themselves in the foot

How would that be to your advantage that they realize that?

You do realize that I'm a rationalist. I'd rather people realize the error of their way, even if they are my opponent. That's a socialist idea, maybe you've missed out on it in your libertarian training of "everyone does what they want, and I'll exploit someone who makes a mistake." (NOT THAT I ACTUALLY BELIEVE LIBERTARIANS BELIEVE THIS. I'm exaggerating again.) --Eira ^omtg! The Goat be praised. 03:24, 6 September 2008 (EDT)

// ... this turns out to be the perfect strategy to win the election in the USA for president, then well... I certainly don't want to stay here.

Where would you go that you consider better than here?

I think I've covered this topic before, but I'm willing and ready to move to Germany. I speak the language, I know the culture, and over there, I'm somewhat of a conservative. Unlike here where I'm so off the charts that "socialist" is regarded as one step above "terrorist". As Human mentioned... there are a lot of places way better than the US to be living (especially if you need extensive health care.) --Eira ^omtg! The Goat be praised. 03:24, 6 September 2008 (EDT)

Some Libts threaten the same thing, but to me it makes no sense. Until we have a dictatorship, there is alway another election, and if you want to change things and influence people in your direction, you're better off stayng here.

Four years is too long to wait... I've dealt with Bush (ok, yeah, I voted for him, because I had no idea what Kerry would do, and we certainly needed to stay there to clean up our mess. But none of his domestic policies have been in any way nice... honestly, I likely would have given up my vote for a person who would immediately withdraw from Iraq over Bush, but 20/20 hindsight.) And you're right... if I want to change things here, and influence people here... I'm better off here, but honestly, I'd be much happier over in Germany where socialism is pretty well accepted, and is just "left-wing" rather than "radical left-wing". --Eira ^omtg! The Goat be praised. 03:24, 6 September 2008 (EDT)

Those celebrities that move to Paris and write anti-American stuff have little credibility among Americans.

You know? I don't think they really care so much. Seriously, if I'm moving away from America to Germany... I've already given up on the USA. I already think that the EU is doing a lot more for the world than the USA (and the world currency markets seem to agree.) --Eira ^omtg! The Goat be praised. 03:24, 6 September 2008 (EDT)

-- Rem^Beau 00:40, 6 September 2008 (EDT)

"Where would you go that you consider better than here?" (and can you please use quote marks instead of those silly slashes?) Actually, rimjob, there are many places in the world that are actually better to live than the US these days. Mobility is not that simple - it costs money, it affects careers and businesses, etc. I am seriously considering getting the fuck out of this country if McCain "wins" since the Palin choice. I think the plan is to assassinate McCain ASAP and turn this place into a Taliban-esque regime. At least, as a British citizen, I can get out easy (while abandoning all I own and have built, pretty much). I'd do it anyway, except that my market is in the US, and the expense of moving is an giant obstacle (PS, as usual, you are an idiot with no real world knowledge). ħuman 00:50, 6 September 2008 (EDT)

[unindent] Eira: // The vast majority of people I meet are Libertarians

Wow. Are you in some kind of business that favors Libt clients?

// And I know "libts", as you call them, are into social rights

Just to state the obvious, your main disagreement then has to do pretty much exclusively with Libt economic principles. Do i have that right?

You put Libts in quotes, i'm wondering why.

Here are three issues on Brian Moore's web page:

3) Initiate a guaranteed income for all American families, working or not, at a level of $35,000 per year per adult (2008 Cost of Living levels)

4) Nationalize Oil Industry, Pharmaceutical Industry, Banking and Insurance Industry, Railroad and Automotive Industries, and Entertainment and Sports Industries

5) Phase out all nuclear power plants, shut down waste incinerators, landfills and open-pit mining.

Do you agree with any of those stands?

On issue 3, why would we stop at $35,000 a year? Why not make it $120,000 a year? (Serious question.)

If i understand your use of the word "exploit", wouldn't a business-employee relationship be a case of mutual exploitation? If either party is free to sever the relationship, and in fact both have entered into it only by mutual agreement.

// Yet, corporations with their "make a profit at all costs" attitude actively opposes workers from banding together in the same way.

If i had invested effort, time, and fortune into creating and building up a company, i would certainly be opposed to employees banding together to be able to force their business decisions on me under threat of striking and closing my business down. Wouldn't you?

// That's a socialist idea, maybe you've missed out on it in your libertarian training of "everyone does what they want, and I'll exploit someone who makes a mistake."

Libertarian training is something i've missed out on. Shucks. Like most that are politically aware, i do indulge in a fair amount of auto-indoctrination, but i promise you i hear and read many more Liberal opinions than Libt ones.

I would ammend your comment to "everyone does what they want, but only up to the point where someone else's rights would be violated". That "I'll exploit someone who makes a mistake" sounds like an invented blanket indictment of Libertarianism. Where does it come from? (You call it an exaggeration, okay, but i suspect you believe there is some basis to it.)

// I think I've covered this topic before, but I'm willing and ready to move to Germany. I speak the language, I know the culture, ...

You may have already covered this as well, but have you read Mein Kampf and Das Kapital in the original? I've heard Mein Kampf is a banned book in Germany -- is that true? And how do you support that?

// Unlike here where I'm so off the charts that "socialist" is regarded as one step above "terrorist".

I realize you're joking, but i am curious ... don't you find many a kindred spirit among Lib-Dems in the US? Or are you too extreme for them?

(Contrary to some rumors you may have heard, i don't feel contempt for Socialists, no matter how crazy i consider their views. Now if you murder, torture, or throw those in jail that refuse to let you force them into your scheme, that would be different.)

-- Rem^Beau 22:38, 6 September 2008 (EDT)

Affair Rumor

[2] Also, "family strife" when her daughter revealed she was pregnant. Worth noting, or wait for more? Meeza don't know 'bout deez newz theengs. Norseman^Wassail! 23:41, 4 September 2008 (EDT)

The National Enquirer (notable news source, lately) is apparently going to run with a story where Sarah fucked some other guy and screwed up a business relationship.

My take on SP: 1st, American Taliban. Second: What we call "white trash"... ħuman 23:57, 4 September 2008 (EDT)

Rumor mongersing, of course, but the guy who aledgedly was the co-affair business partner just tried to seal the divorce records. It's highly likely they name the women he had an affair with.--Waiting for Godot 17:11, 5 September 2008 (EDT)

Your typos are so sexy. <3 I'm not seeing any momentum in this rumor other than the individual they think she had an affair with, being named as Brad Hanson, but there's nothing more than that. Norseman^Wassail! 11:01, 6 September 2008 (EDT)

I thought it was fairly well established that Liberals don't think affairs matter, that a person's personal life, especially sex, shouldn't be considered?

Do i have this wrong? Anyone here feel infidelity in marriage is an indicator of someone's character, even it it's a politician?

-- Rem^Beau 21:09, 7 September 2008 (EDT)

It's the hypocrisy that bothers us, not the affair or the knocked-up unmarried daughter. Shit happens to all of us that we don't plan; these people want to make the shit a crime. Then their poster hockey mom seems to come with a full load of "shit that happens to all of us" - and she is hard core American Taliban. ħuman 21:46, 7 September 2008 (EDT)

And why do you have to ascribe everything you talk about to political labels? You diminish your interlocutors and yourself at the same time. Just say what you think, and your friends here will come to think of it as "Remism". ħuman 21:47, 7 September 2008 (EDT)

// It's the hypocrisy ...

It's the hypocrisy, it sure is, and the double standard, and the rationalizations invented so as to make out it's not hypocrisy. Those rationalizations don't fool anybody -- anybody that doesn't have a dog in the fight can see right thru them.

I'm not at all implying it's just on the Left. Any disinterested person can immediately see how the Left and Right, with ease, have switched places. It's the old, "when my guy does it, it's no big deal. It's just a smear campaign from nasty demons, our opponents, who don't understand what should be off limits".

All of a sudden the Con-Pubs are feminists, and Lib-Dem media types ask questions that would normally make feminists go ballistic. It's pure partisanship, and i'm hoping someone here will admit it.

// And why do you have to ascribe everything you talk about to political labels?

Riiiiight. Political is ALL this issue is about, it's the whole truth and nothing but the truth. You know what Jack Nicholson would say.

// ... your friends here ...

Just you, and sometimes i wonder about you.

-- Rem^Beau 23:38, 7 September 2008 (EDT) (The founder and sole proprietor of Remism)

I enjoyed your on-line Libt mag, by the way. Thanks. I have been intending to comment on it.

-- Rem^Beau 23:40, 7 September 2008 (EDT)

"It's the old, "when my guy does it, it's no big deal..." No, that's exactly how this works. Did I think it was bad when Clinton lied to his wife, congress and us? Yah. It was horribly embarrassing.

I can't speak for all, only for myself - see, I'm not a political party, I'm just a guy.

"Political is ALL this issue is about, it's the whole truth and nothing but the truth. You know what Jack Nicholson would say." At one level, yes it is. It is partican politics, and that is what SP is doing. So she gets it in return. But these things are never B&W. I have no idea what JN would say, and I don't really care, he has never impressed me as a wise man. Just a rich one (I admire his acting career, don't give a shit about his beloved Lakers?)

Please, feel free to share what Remism with us/me, we all share our personal "isms" all over this site without having to use silly labels.

You found the magazine on line? Awesome. Glad you enjoyed it, I thought you would. Feel free to comment on my talk page or on yours where I tole ya about it. (Whenever time and interest permit) ħuman 23:54, 7 September 2008 (EDT)

Some comments

"Though Palin is a staunch evangelical pro-lifer who advocates the "abstinence-only" program as a method of preventing teen pregnancies, her daughter became pregnant at 17. ??? So her daughter did not follow her mother's advice. Does that somehow have anything to do with the credibility of governor Palin? She is now using this information as political fodder for her VP campaign as a way of "connecting" to families with similar issues. It should also be noted that the "bluer" (i.e., more Democratic-voting) states have lower rates of teen pregnancy. But really, aren't "all babies beautiful"?" That makes sense because in the "bluer states, the babies get aborted, and don't show up in the teen pregnancy rate. --CPAdmin1 23:55, 9 September 2008 (EDT)

Do blue states have higher abortion rates? Data please. $\approx$$\pi$ 00:00, 10 September 2008 (EDT)

No, lower. And lower teenage pregnancy rates. Sorry, no link. Mssr. Google is your friend. ħuman 00:49, 10 September 2008 (EDT)

Same in Europe. Denmark has a negative population growth, yet when a poll was taken of college aged girls, the question "Would you sleep with a guy on the first date?" (obviously, it was actually in Danish) the overwhelming response was "Of course, I would not have accepted the date otherwise." Abstinence-only is consistently shown to be the biggest cause of teen pregnancy. Romeo and Juliet were FOURTEEN (14) YEARS OLD, and they KILLED THEMSELVES over their love. "This is thy sheath; there rest, and let me die." I can hardly imagine someone suggesting that any amount of coaxing will keep two lovers apart, when Romeo and Juliet is so intrinsically a part of our culture. Truly, "Pregnancy, where is thy sting?" --Eira ^omtg! The Goat be praised. 16:29, 12 September 2008 (EDT)

"Romeo and Juliet were FOURTEEN (14) YEARS OLD, and they KILLED THEMSELVES over their love." I know you know, but I have to point out that they weren't and they didn't. They are fictional characters. Like that Murphy Brown person. ħuman 21:10, 12 September 2008 (EDT)

Eira: // ... the question "Would you sleep with a guy on the first date?" (obviously, it was actually in Danish) ...

If you have a link to that Danish site, i'm interested. Danish is, i think, a Germanic tongue, and i would like to take a look at it.

// ... Romeo and Juliet is so intrinsically a part of our culture. ...

Your circle of friends follows Shakespeare? I'm nearly an idiot when it comes to Shakespeare, and most of the people i know know even less than i. He stole the story from an Italian author you know.

-- Rem^Beau 23:20, 12 September 2008 (EDT)

You're nearly an idiot, and yet you know the genesis of R & J? Silly Rumbot, it's the oldest story ever told... PS... You want to go to Denmark where the "women are easy"? You still have to "get the date". ħuman 23:40, 12 September 2008 (EDT)

No, my friends don't follow Shakespeare... However, in America everyone knows about the idea of Romeo and Juliet, a pair meant to be together, yet kept apart by fate, until they kill themselves. It's like... Jesus, and Noah and the Ark, I mean, they're just totally stories that everyone in America knows about. As well, I'm confused as to what you're asking for. What link to what Danish site? What relevance does the classification of the language bear upon the discussion at hand? --Eira ^omtg! The Goat be praised. 03:20, 13 September 2008 (EDT)

Bah! :P Whatever human. They were fourteen year old fictional characters that killed themselves over their love. --Eira ^omtg! The Goat be praised. 03:20, 13 September 2008 (EDT)

" As well, I'm confused as to what you're asking for. What link to what Danish site?" Well, you did say "Denmark has a negative population growth, yet when a poll was taken..." Where is the poll? That was the question. "Bah! :P Whatever human. They were fourteen year old fictional characters..." Exactly. And Goldilocks, Santa, Hansel and Gretel, etc., were all "real" in what way? ħuman 03:54, 13 September 2008 (EDT)

It's an allegory... it's fictional by basis... however it serves to make one consider a point that they may have missed. As for the sources to my comment, I will draw them up. --Eira ^omtg! The Goat be praised. 05:01, 13 September 2008 (EDT)

Cool, I'd love to see the poll... by the way, the don't let the "argument" over R & J make it seems as if I disagree with you on the actual substantive issue at hand. ħuman 17:54, 13 September 2008 (EDT)

Ah... it seems it's not quite negative. According to the CIA World Factbook, Denmark has a birth rate of 10.71 births/1,000 population, and death rate of 10.25 deaths/1,000 population. That yields an increase of 0.046% population birth to death rate. (The regular population growth estimates include immigrants which inflates the number otherwise prevalent to the argument here). For comparison the USA has a birth rate of 14.18 births/1,000 population, and a death rate of 8.27 deaths/1,000 population. Without even doing the math, you can see that there are more births per 1,000 people. And the death rate is a fair amount lower too. This yields a birth:death ratio of 0.591% Which is, um... nearly 13 times larger. wow. Hehe. I'll look for the poll next. --Eira ^omtg! The Goat be praised. 20:08, 13 September 2008 (EDT)

Um, why is the CIA keeping track of foreign countries birth rates? Radioactive afikomen ^{Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments.} 20:14, 13 September 2008 (EDT)

The CIA is the government in the US that is responsible for intelligence on foreign nations. The task was given "we should keep track of world population rates and stuff, and back it up here in the USA, so we know we can trust it." This falls in the CIAs lap, as they're the only organization allowed to keep track of domestic issues in foreign countries. Note, the CIA isn't ALL about spying and starting covert wars... hehe, some of them are just linguists, and data collectors who just know about foreign nations. --Eira ^omtg! The Goat be praised. 20:34, 13 September 2008 (EDT)

CCIES at The Kinsey Institute: Denmark Seems to use the poll by Rasmussen in 1999 as a significant source of youths in Denmark during 1999, (Titled: Ung 99 - En Seksuel Profil In English: Youth 1999 - A Sexual Profile available here for 75kr, or 200kr for the whole study and findings on CD) the study found "A third and a half of girls and boys, respectively, had known their partner less than a month at their sexual debut, and similar fractions found it fully acceptable to have sex within a week of the first date." (according to the CCIES) It's not a majority, but I'd say it's higher than the US rates saying it's "fully acceptable" to have sex on the first date. I don't have any sources for that comment though. Although, with 1/3 of girls saying "totally, it's fine to have sex on the first date" and then 1/3 girl only having known their partner for less than a month when they first had sex. At the very least, I think people on Conservapedia would cough at these numbers, swallow their gum and say "OMG! They're hedonistic idiots!" even though they don't know the US rates either... which might be higher *laugh* --Eira ^omtg! The Goat be praised. 20:32, 13 September 2008 (EDT)

If she weighs the same as a duck....

Have you noticed her daughters are all named after famous witches or covens thereof? There's Willow (Buffy the Vampire Slayer), Piper (Charmed) and then Bristol (after the famous 19th century coven... Yes, OK it's a stretch.) Then we've got her sons named track and trig. Is this some kind of naming spell to make them in to an athlete and an engineer respectively? Perhaps this is just what the Obama campaign needs to split the Christian vote, spread the rumour she's using occult powers. :D --JeevesMkII 11:40, 14 September 2008 (EDT)

Well, summing Bristol, Willow, Piper, Track, and Trig results in 360. Which is the number of degrees in a circle. And pentacles and pentagrams are constructed inside circles. Thunderkatz^Ho! 11:52, 14 September 2008 (EDT)

That excellent bit of numerology totally proves it! Coming to a smear campaign website near you, spiritualwarfareveteransfortruth.com. --JeevesMkII 12:00, 14 September 2008 (EDT)

Hm... I think I should start the site "pagansforpalin.com" :) --Eira ^omtg! The Goat be praised. 17:15, 14 September 2008 (EDT)

"Trig" is a very suspicious name as well. Obviously short for "trigonometry". Which was allegedly invented by the ancient Egyptian Imhotep - he of The Mummy fame. Which also takes us to the magical power of pyramids. We can all see the pattern here, can't we?--Bob^{bing up} 17:26, 14 September 2008 (EDT)

Takes us to the ALIEN-BUILT pyramids... there's no magical power there, just alien technology :P Don't you read the tabloids? --Eira ^omtg! The Goat be praised. 21:17, 14 September 2008 (EDT)

Hell, don't you read Schlafly's edumacational history lectures? Humans today could never build a pyramid, they're so amazingly complicated! Though I think he's thinking god rather than aliens, plus creationism requires him to believe ancient peoples were millions of times smarter such that they could build a wooden boat the size of an escort carrier. --JeevesMkII 03:35, 15 September 2008 (EDT)

Bah, apparently this is not an original thought. Why can't I ever dream up a conspiracy theory that some other nutcase out there on t'internet hasn't already thought of first? I want my own cult, dammit! --JeevesMkII 05:31, 15 September 2008 (EDT)

Sorry... you're just too not-off-the-wall to think of something original. :( I suggest you give up your dreams and move along. --Eira ^omtg! The Goat be praised. 20:43, 15 September 2008 (EDT)

OMTG

I just read the most recent edit. I can totally believe it, but I just have one thing to say that was my actual comment when I read it the first time. "Jesus Christ..." --Eira ^omtg! The Goat be praised. 19:27, 24 September 2008 (EDT)

The Couric interview is awe inspiring. October 2nd, tick, tick tick....tmtoulouse 17:20, 27 September 2008 (EDT)

MILF McMooseburger

If you google MILF McMooseburger ( which is not something I would do ) this article is number 4 on google which is bound to generate mucho tráfico. Olé! Teabag 20:11, 27 September 2008 (EDT)

Um, sweet, I think. ħuman 22:29, 27 September 2008 (EDT)

Actually it is three, the pseudo-third entry is a related page on the same site. $\approx$$\pi$ _Mowse 22:41, 27 September 2008 (EDT)

Anagrams

Feel free to make a sub-page, like we did at Asshole Bumfly's article, if there are many more... ħuman 01:54, 1 October 2008 (EDT)

Trig - son or grandson?

I've found a couple of blogs asking whether Trig is actually her grandson. Can we do something with this or are they on a false trail? Show me the Trig Palin birth certificate and Could Trig Palin Actually be Sarah Palin's Grandson??? Totnesmartin 16:59, 1 October 2008 (EDT)

That's about as stupid as the idea that Obama's birthplace Kenya isn't one of the 57 United States. Francine 17:01, 1 October 2008 (EDT)

Wow, you read those blogs quickly! Totnesmartin 17:04, 1 October 2008 (EDT)

There is evidence from comments by her husband, Todd, that Sarah Palin did indeed take serious risks with her own and her unborn child's health by getting onto a plane when in labor. That fact alone (which calls into judgment questions of her sanity) should disprove any sillyness about the baby not being hers. And circumstantially, DOWNS is often a problem of older women having children, which would fit the facts quite well. Todd's (oops)Palin's spokes woman's quotes are here. [3]. "The governor went into labor Thursday while in Texas at an energy conference. Her contractions let up enough for her to fly home on Alaska Airlines to deliver her baby in Alaska, Leighow said." Not my choice for mother of the year, but it may have been one of those events that made people say "oh, what if the baby were really not hers, and her daughter was suddenly in labor".--En attendant Godot_{"To-morrow, when I wake, or think I do, what shall I say of to-day?"} 17:06, 1 October 2008 (EDT)

TotnesM, that rumor about the baby being her daughter's has been around since day one of her campaign.--En attendant Godot_{"To-morrow, when I wake, or think I do, what shall I say of to-day?"} 17:07, 1 October 2008 (EDT)

The rumor was bolstered by the photos of Bristol, showing a bit of a "baby tummy", etc. When the announcement was made that she was actually blessed with a child-spore, the theory collapsed of its own weight. ħuman 17:18, 1 October 2008 (EDT)

Biden vs Palin tonight -- predictions?

Biden will obviously outshine Palin in knowledge -- and Palin will be properly frightened, and it's bound to show. It's not clear to me how the pundits score these debates, but there is little chance anybody will actually believe Palin the winner.

The spin the newsies put on her anticipated performance is interesting. Some say Biden will clean her clock, but some say she'll do really well, maybe by common folk identifying with her. Heightening expectations or lowering them; i wonder. My question -- which spin will serve her the best?

And should they let Palin be Palin if they want her to look good?

It has even been suggested (by the Right) that Biden had better try not to be himself. I have noticed that, kind of like McCain, he sometimes smiles at odd times. Anybody else notice that?

So ... how about some predictions? I'm on record (Biden will win handily), anybody else willing to predict?

-- Rem^Beau 13:42, 2 October 2008 (EDT)

Expectations for Palin are so low that simply not dribbling on the floor will be seen as a success.--Bob^{bing up} 14:54, 2 October 2008 (EDT)

She can't dribble though. tmtoulouse 14:56, 2 October 2008 (EDT)

Quick response with the funny TM!--Bob^{bing up} 14:58, 2 October 2008 (EDT)

I predict Palin will be decidedly mediocre, giving vague answers and mostly attacking Obama. She'll have no serious gaffes; if she's asked a question she can't answer, she'll answer a question that wasn't asked. It will not be a great performance, but it will not be the knock-out blow we're looking for. In fact, with expectations so low, it will be tantamount to a small victory for her. No real effect on the polls. Of course, I hope I'm wrong and she says something unbelievably stupid. If nothing else it would make the night interesting, and I'm predicting it will be somewhat boring. DickTurpis 15:07, 2 October 2008 (EDT)

Over here (UK) someone called her a liability on BBC R4 News - whatever she does tonight, mind you they also slagged Biden quite a bit!   ^Contribs_Talk 15:12, 2 October 2008 (EDT)

I predict that it will at least be more interesting than the Obama/McCain snoozefest debate. But just like every two-party debate, we won't actually learn anything or gain any advantage in the political process. JazzMan 15:13, 2 October 2008 (EDT)

One can only hope for a major malfunction, but I agree with DickTurpis. Expectationa are terribly low, and she will give brief answers to questions unasked. Honestly, I would have thought she would have 'bowed out graciously' by now. Speakerface ^{with 4 M's and a silent Q} 15:15, 2 October 2008 (EDT)

Biden is known for saying some silly/stupid things when he talks extemporaneously, and their is a worry (right or wrong) that he has to treat Palin with kid gloves to avoid being seen as beating on a poor woman. Palin will be instructed to keep things laconic and focused as well. I think both campaigns are telling the veeps to answer as short as possibly and just agree with the presidential candidates. To me that means this has all the potential to be extremely dull. tmtoulouse 15:19, 2 October 2008 (EDT)

Another problem is that this isn't a debate in any real sense of the word. This is a question being asked by a moderator, a response, then "on to the next question". The "other guy" does not get to directly challenge the answers of the first responder. I'm not even clear if he or she gets 2 minutes of his own on teh same topic.

one thing the Alaskian governor is good at is making you think she has answered you, and making it sound lovely to the "common man". Question is, who are the "un-decideds", and how will they see it.

Well, it's over. I think my prediction was right on. I hope I'm right about the polls. DickTurpis 23:25, 2 October 2008 (EDT)

Yah, well, Dick, Ah'll just haff to git back to yah on that! Sarah Palin 23:32, 2 October 2008 (EDT)

Andys snooze fest = Biden won. Ace McWicked^{cast ye the first stone} 23:37, 2 October 2008 (EDT)

DickTurpis winz. That said, I felt Biden's heartfelt "emotional moment" about his family went over very well. Also I'm pretty sure I talk like Palin. :(--Bayes 23:58, 2 October 2008 (EDT)

P.S.: this "facebook page" is teh awesome. I personally like Levi's comment.--Bayes 00:05, 3 October 2008 (EDT)

W/Bayes, yeah, I thought Biden pwned by holding that back until he used it - it totally cheapened all of Pwnlins "kitchen table" garbage. ħuman 00:06, 3 October 2008 (EDT)

Post-debate reactions

My post debate analysis is thus: Plain did better than expected, but if the bar hadn't been so low, she wouldn't have come over so well. While she was certainly more coherent than she was in her Couric interview, her answers were still a mess of ramlbing run-on sentences. I guess voters don't care much about that, but I found it off-putting. I would like to see some of the transcripts, as this method of speaking works much better when you hear it than when you read it. I'd like to try to parse her sentences, or remove the punctuation and see if anyone can figure out where it goes when you put it back in. Her folksy style sort of irritated me, and much of it came off as very contrived and rehearsed. I swear, if she used the word "maverick" one more time I was going to throw something at the fucking TV. Maverick always seemed to me to be one of those words that others use to describe you rather than you use to describe yourself. Also, as I figured, she flat out did not answer several questions. The art of the modern debate is not to answer the question asked, but to answer the question you wish you were asked. Palin did this often, but was too obvious about it too often. The trick is to make people not notice you're doing this. With her it was obvious much of the time. I recall one of the last questions being about her biggest weakness (probably the most cliche job interview question out there), and I believe her answer was something like "I didn't veto every budget".

Biden, on the other hand, gave what I thought was the best performance of the four candidates so far. He was clear and concise, he showed he was knowledgable and had a grasp of the issues, and actually answered most of the questions. Lame of an answer it was, he alone at least named something when the question came up again of what the 700 billion bailout would mean doing without (true, his answer was 90% what he wouldn't cut, but the other 10% was more than Palin, McCain, or Obama gave). Palin seemed to think that 700 billion was insignificant and wouldn't mean sacrificing anything. There were a few accusations he could have responded to better, like the diplomacy without preconditions issue that Obama handled pretty well, I thought. While I'm sure much of what he said was rehearsed, he made it seem less so, for what it's worth. I have little doubt he intended to work the tragedy of his wife and daughter into an answer somewhere, but when he did, it certainly came off as sincere. I don't think even the most cynical pundits are saying his chocking up there was not genuine. DickTurpis 10:19, 3 October 2008 (EDT)

// ... saying his chocking up there was not genuine.

No doubt genuine, but is it appropriate to even bring it up?

// Plain did better than expected,

Much, much better. Gibson and Couric definitely helped her to set expectations low.

// Her folksy style sort of irritated me,

Yeah, me too, but i was well aware that might work very well with most folks, and with her it may be genuine. When Biden tried it, it was obvious.

Most of us here care about things like run-on sentences (even tho we do them ourselves), but you know that tags us as elitists, fair or unfair.

// Biden, on the other hand, gave what I thought was the best performance of the four candidates so far.

True. Biden and McCain (old buddies apparently) have knowledge and experience Obama and Palin couldn't have, and McCain is a poor debater and speaker, so it would be expected.

// Palin seemed to think that 700 billion was insignificant and wouldn't mean sacrificing anything.

What did she say that leads you to that opinion?

// The art of the modern debate is not to answer the question asked, but to answer the question you wish you were asked.

Name ONE politician that doesn't use that device?

The thing that got me about the maverick discussion is how they BOTH wasted time on it. Is that really an issue that voters should care about? Zheeesh!

-- Rem^Beau 13:16, 3 October 2008 (EDT)

Student-body vice presidency

Did anyone else get the sense that they might be watching the Wasilla High School student-body vice presidential debate last night from listening to Sarah Palin? --Edgerunner⁷⁶_{Your views are intriguing to me and I wish to subscribe to your newsletter} 12:04, 3 October 2008 (EDT)

Controversial?

Article page: // Although it appears that she has not been a member of the Alaskan Independence Party, her husband has been, and she did provide a recorded welcoming to an AIP convention.[20]

How is this controversial?

-- Rem^Beau 14:11, 4 October 2008 (EDT)

I think it has something to do with wanting to secede from the Union, which may not seem particularly weird, but it is a a little out of the mainstream - especially when put side-by-side with a bid for national office... ħuman 15:38, 4 October 2008 (EDT)

Well yes. Presumably somebody who might become president of the USA should be expected to at least have some commitment to keeping it in one piece. Or have I misunderstood the nature of the office?--Bob^{bing up} 15:53, 4 October 2008 (EDT)

I think there actually might be something about "preserving the Union" in the oath of office, but I didn't bother to look it up. ħuman 16:02, 4 October 2008 (EDT)

To many of us who support the USA, trying to dismember it seems pretty treasonous. (Esp. after that big, nasty war that was fought about it.) On the other hand, the lower 48 do subsidize Alaska quite a bit. Maybe if they left, we'd be able to renegotiate. As for preserving the Union, they are only technically supposed to protect, defend, etc., the Constitution of the United States, which says nothing about states leaving, one way or another. Researcher 08:17, 5 October 2008 (EDT)

She was born in Idaho, so she may believe in Alaskan independence and still reconcile that with being American or whatever. (Egad! I just defended her!) Totnesmartin 08:38, 5 October 2008 (EDT)

Then again, she flew back to Alaska from Texas while in labor, in order that the newly-minted Palin would be a true-blue snow-machine-riding, hockey-haired, meth-cooking Alaskan. (And thus a full citizen after secession) Or something like that. PS, I thought it the oil fields that subsidized Alaska more than the lower 48? ħuman 18:01, 5 October 2008 (EDT)

Thank you Sarah Palin TV ad

Did anyone else see these ads from Our Country Deserves Better PAC? At first I thought that they were a parody and were thanking Sarah Palin for ensuring the election of Barack Obama. But, they're actually for real. They are really thanking her. --Edgerunner⁷⁶_{Your views are intriguing to me and I wish to subscribe to your newsletter} 07:19, 25 November 2008 (EST)

Are they on the utoobz somewhere? ħuman 18:19, 25 November 2008 (EST)

Here. --Gulik 19:25, 25 November 2008 (EST)

Thanks! ħuman 20:02, 25 November 2008 (EST)

That was a riot. It's on their webshite, too. I can see why you thought it was parody, I'm still not convinced it's not ;) ħuman 20:05, 25 November 2008 (EST)

Oh my God! That was horrible! If that ad is for real, it's one of the worst examples I've ever seen. Must... go... lie down... --AKjeldsen^{Cum dissensie} 20:08, 25 November 2008 (EST)

So they aren't still running it, are they? "The Our Country Deserves Better PAC has one objective: to defeat Barack Obama in the 2008 presidential election." Phail. Epic Phail :) ħuman 20:19, 25 November 2008 (EST)

Update

I don't suppose any Sarah Palin fans out there want to start updating this to recognize that the election is over?--Bob^{bing up} 11:39, 7 December 2008 (EST)

I dun chopped and changed some tenses myself so that it no longer reads as though the election is still going on. Somebody with better knowledge of US politics might wish to consider if it's all still relevant.--Bob^{bing up} 13:42, 7 December 2008 (EST)

Might want to add this too. DogP 21:02, 17 February 2009 (EST)

Yes, or better yet, add it to our abstinence only articles, wherever they are? And the birth control ones? ħuman 22:30, 17 February 2009 (EST)

Cunt

I mean, seriously, it might be funny and true but it's a bit tasteless right? ArmondikoV^postate 09:30, 17 February 2009 (EST)

And childish. And, not actually that funny. I say get rid. Bondurant 09:52, 17 February 2009 (EST)

Funny (even if only mildly) and true, so why get rid of? I won't comment on the "taste" issue... ħuman 16:24, 17 February 2009 (EST)

Well, besides insulting someone it's completely unfair to label Sarah Palin a "cunt" (which is what the article is doing in linking to it) and then deride others for using ad hominem attacks like that. She does enough damage to herself as it is without us having to do something that silly. ArmondikoV^postate 09:24, 19 February 2009 (EST)

It's an insult to fine vaginas everywhere. TheoryOfPractice 09:31, 19 February 2009 (EST)

Fairly pointless insult so I've zapped it. If anybody wants to fight for its re-instatement let's hear it.--Bob^{bing up} 09:50, 19 February 2009 (EST)

Pro-life feminism about rape

It also remains inconceivable to some True FeministsTM that a "feminist" can hold the position that women are legally, morally, ethically, intellectually equal to men while still saying that if raped, they must have the rapist's child. That's hardly an equality.

The word "must" means nothing in this context, because there is no option not to have the child. The only option is between keeping or killing the child.

Now the question is... if the child is female, then what is at stake? Privacy (bodily?) rights of one woman and the right to life of another woman. Where does the feminism come in? --Idiot number 59 (talk) 15:53, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

A woman cannot be forced to have a child. --88.194.161.126 (talk) 16:15, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

The people who promote these views should have the courage of their convictions, and adopt the children in question. 82.44.143.26 (talk) 18:09, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

SP and guns debate

Mention should be made of the shooting.

Could SP and team have pleaded the Thomas a Beckett excuse? Or was her plug and the shooting two different expressions of the same 'negative outlook'? 82.44.143.26 (talk) 18:06, 17 January 2011 (UTC)