GrayBeard Wrote:Please inform us of what the standard should be. Women with Infants? Dad's with Infants? Special needs children? To what age? Please please give us what the qualifications should be!

If you're wanting a black-and-white, right-and-wrong answer you aren't getting it. Each situation is different. I do know that a child with Down's syndrome needs the attention of his mother and his father. He doesn't need one family member who works 16-18 hours a day. To disregard the challenges that a parent has to assume when they have a special needs child is like disregarding the importance of wheels on a car. Children with Down's syndrome have delayed development of motor skills, cognitive skills, speech, and social skills, the severity of which is variable with each case. It is paramount for both parents to be heavily involved in Trig's life. Trig's well-being should not be pushed off on a nanny because of his mother's aspirations. I find such judgment selfish and thoughtless. If you're going to tout your pro-life stance on delivering your baby who has Down's syndrome, you damn well better be the one caring for it.

All this talk of Sarah Palin needing to be more involved with her kids is bull crap. All kids need their parent figures in their life, not just kids with special needs or anything of the sort. And what special qulaifications does Ms. Palin have that requires her to drop her career and devote her life to her children (other than the fact that she is the mother)? What I'm hearing is that any woman who give birth to a child that has special needs must immediately drop her career and give that child 100% attention. That's a sad thought.

Ms. Palin probably knows very little about how to raise a down syndrome child, but I'm guessing she won't be doing it alone. I'm sure child care professionals with experience raising down syndrome children will be hired (if not already) by the family to help with Trig. I'm sure the other children also have tutors and care workers. This entire line of reasoning that parents can't serve as POTUS or VPOTUS makes me sick. From what little I know of Ms. Palin's politics I disagree more than agree so far, but the issue of the care of her children should not even be a topic of discussion in a progressive society unless she's doing something criminal to them.

Rebel Wrote:

jh Wrote:From reading about her rise to the governorship in Alaska, she seems more than capable of taking care of herself. If you were in Alaska you did not want to get on her bad side lest you find yourself unemployed. The Barracuda nickname seems highly appropriate.

You have one trooper, who threatened her sister, her nephew, and her father. A person also abusive, I.e., domestic assault. This would prevent him from serving his duties per the Laughtenberg Amendment.

Anymore brainbusters there, Cheech?

Oh, I just don't know why I bother with you.

Have you really not read anything about her? She was initially a supporter of both the incumbant mayor of Wasilla & govenor of Alaska until she decided to unseat them. They got on her bad side, they wound up unemployed. There have been numerous other casualties on her rise to power, not just the troopergate scandal. Some were justified, some were petty, and others were just politics. I really don't know enough about her or Alaskan politics to be able to divide everything up into one of those categories.

Since it's you, Rebel, I'm going to go the extra mile & clarify myself even further. If you pay attention to the post I was responding to, you will note that Owl 69/70/75 said that he felt like Palin would do a better job of defending her selection than the McCain campaign staffer. I was agreeing with him, using terms like "more than capable" and "to her credit", yet you, with your singular reading comprehension skills, chose to view it as an attack. From everything I've seen so far, Palin appears to be a consumately skilled politician, more than capable of defending herself.

So, running against someone in an election is now considered "making someone lose a job" and should now be considered to have negative connotations associated with it? Damn, ya know, you're right. What in the hell were the founders thinking? What a buncha morons they were!

Wait, so if you run for Mayor/Governor the previous holder of that position can't stay the May/Governor? If she wins the VP, does that mean Cheney will no longer be VP?

Bourgeois_Rage Wrote:All this talk of Sarah Palin needing to be more involved with her kids is bull crap. All kids need their parent figures in their life, not just kids with special needs or anything of the sort. And what special qulaifications does Ms. Palin have that requires her to drop her career and devote her life to her children (other than the fact that she is the mother)? What I'm hearing is that any woman who give birth to a child that has special needs must immediately drop her career and give that child 100% attention. That's a sad thought.

Ms. Palin probably knows very little about how to raise a down syndrome child, but I'm guessing she won't be doing it alone. I'm sure child care professionals with experience raising down syndrome children will be hired (if not already) by the family to help with Trig. I'm sure the other children also have tutors and care workers. This entire line of reasoning that parents can't serve as POTUS or VPOTUS makes me sick. From what little I know of Ms. Palin's politics I disagree more than agree so far, but the issue of the care of her children should not even be a topic of discussion in a progressive society unless she's doing something criminal to them.

QFMFT!!!!

perunapower there's only one person here who's an idiot or disenginuous that's you and your sexist lib cohorts.

If Palin were a liberal on the democratic ticket you wouldn't hold this opinion.

Sexism at it's finest, and from the party of "tolerance" no less.

That's BR, not Peruna.

...and I agree, BR.

Ninerfan1 Wrote:QFMFT!!!!

perunapower there's only one person here who's an idiot or disenginuous that's you and your sexist lib cohorts.

If Palin were a liberal on the democratic ticket you wouldn't hold this opinion.

Sexism at it's finest, and from the party of "tolerance" no less.

Are you just going to call me names or are you actually going to address something?

I don't have a problem with a woman being in office, which seems to be the crux of your "argument". I don't care if the mother of an infant has a job; I don't think they should be relegated to the home, unless they want to be (because some do). But what my "sexist lib cohorts" seem to realize that you either fail to realize, or just don't want to realize, is that taking care of a child with Down's syndrome is a full-time job. That doesn't mean that the parents must quit both of their jobs and give 100% of their attention all the time. I'm not saying that no parent with a child with Down's syndrome can hold a job, but taking a job that requires the amount of travel and time devotion that being vice president certainly does makes it awfully hard to juggle those responsibilities.

Also, don't accuse me of holding a double standard. I am more than capable of being critical of Democratic candidates, just as I am being critical of a Republican candidate.

Quote:Are you just going to call me names or are you actually going to address something?

You said:

Quote:They aren't comparable, if you think they you're either an idiot or being disingenuous.

Pot, meet kettle.

Quote:But what my "sexist lib cohorts" seem to realize that you either fail to realize, or just don't want to realize, is that taking care of a child with Down's syndrome is a full-time job. I'm not saying that no parent with a child with Down's syndrome can hold a job, but taking a job that requires the amount of travel and time devotion that being vice president certainly does makes it awfully hard to juggle those responsibilities.

No, what's sexist is your apparant belief that the mother must be there, 24/7 to do it. Her husband is a stay at home dad. Is he not capable of caring for the child when she's working? The amount of support and help she will have as VP, combined with her stay at home dad husband, will plenty to help care for the baby. To try and argue that the only way the child will get the care it needs is if she is constantly around is not only illogical, it's sexist.

Quote:Also, don't accuse me of holding a double standard. I am more than capable of being critical of Democratic candidates, just as I am being critical of a Republican candidate.

Oh sure.

Rebel Wrote:So, running against someone in an election is now considered "making someone lose a job" and should now be considered to have negative connotations associated with it? Damn, ya know, you're right. What in the hell were the founders thinking? What a buncha morons they were!

I don't know where you came up with the negative connotations, but then I don't know where you come up with half the stuff you say. Her nickname is Sarah Barracuda, a holdover from her high school basketball days. You don't keep a nickname like Barracuda, a nickname that more than one conservative commentator has referenced in glowing terms, by being a warm & fuzzy politician. Again, I'm not criticizing her for it (and specifically said some were just politics), I'm noting that she has repeatedly proven to be capable of taking care of herself in almost every political battle she has been a part of (she did lose one election).

How often is an incumbant politician unseated by someone from their own party, particularly someone with whom they had previously been aligned? I don't have any numbers, but I'm willing to bet it's exceedingly rare, especially at the level of govenor. She's done it twice (though the mayoral job was technically non-partisan she & the mayor worked together to institute the sales tax). For hopefully the last time, I don't have a problem with her doing it. But it can't be denied that when she wanted something in Alaska, she usually got it.

Ninerfan1 Wrote:You said:

Quote:They aren't comparable, if you think they you're either an idiot or being disingenuous.

Pot, meet kettle.

I guess you could have been disingenuous. That's not really name-calling. If you chose to associate yourself in the "idiot" crowd, I'm sorry you got your feelings hurt. Maybe I should have called it the "factually-challenged circle of friends".

Quote:No, what's sexist is your apparant belief that the mother must be there, 24/7 to do it. Her husband is a stay at home dad. Is he not capable of caring for the child when she's working? The amount of support and help she will have as VP, combined with her stay at home dad husband, will plenty to help care for the baby. To try and argue that the only way the child will get the care it needs is if she is constantly around is not only illogical, it's sexist.

Where are you gathering that I said she should be there 24/7? If I said parents of an infant with Down's syndrome can hold jobs, which I most certainly remember doing, then obviously I don't think she can be there 24/7. Todd Palin is a fisherman and an employee at BP, neither of which he can keep doing if McCain wins the presidency, but it's rather disingenuous of you to call him a stay at home dad when he works two jobs. I'm not saying this poor baby is going to be left alone, but she needs to be a part of this baby's life, just like the father. I, personally, feel that being vice president will seriously detriment the time she can spend having an active role in Trig's life. She doesn't need to be "constantly around" because that's ridiculous, but she needs to be around.

But if I'm a sexist for thinking that both parents should play an important role in the child's infancy, especially one with Down's syndrome, well I guess you can call me a sexist. I'm not trying to keep a woman out of office; I'm not trying to keep a woman in the home; I'm not saying that a woman can't hold a job.

perunapower Wrote:

Ninerfan1 Wrote:You said:

Quote:They aren't comparable, if you think they you're either an idiot or being disingenuous.

Pot, meet kettle.

I guess you could have been disingenuous. That's not really name-calling. If you chose to associate yourself in the "idiot" crowd, I'm sorry you got your feelings hurt. Maybe I should have called it the "factually-challenged circle of friends".

That's a cute attempt but let's revert back to what I said that solicited your "waaaaah are you just going to name call" remark.

Quote:perunapower there's only one person here who's an idiot or disenginuous that's you and your sexist lib cohorts

I used the same remark you did to start the whole thing. So as to your sad attempt above.....again....pot, meet kettle.

Quote:Where are you gathering that I said she should be there 24/7? If I said parents of an infant with Down's syndrome can hold jobs, which I most certainly remember doing, then obviously I don't think she can be there 24/7. Todd Palin is a fisherman and an employee at BP, neither of which he can keep doing if McCain wins the presidency, but it's rather disingenuous of you to call him a stay at home dad when he works two jobs.

Both are done part time. My wife stays home with our kids all week and works a weekend here and there. You don't see me claiming she's not a stay at home mom, nor should anyone else with a lick of sense.

You finally caught on with the part I bolded. Well done.

Quote:I'm not saying this poor baby is going to be left alone, but she needs to be a part of this baby's life, just like the father. I, personally, feel that being vice president will seriously detriment the time she can spend having an active role in Trig's life. She doesn't need to be "constantly around" because that's ridiculous, but she needs to be around.

Why? Back this up with some examples. Tell us what is the acceptable amount of time for a mother to be around a special needs child? 18 hours a day? Quantify how much time should be spent with him before "detriment" sets in. While you're at it quantify for us how pronounced his DS is. There are various degrees DS affects a child. Many are very high functioning. Do you know where Trig sits in that regard?

Quote:But if I'm a sexist for thinking that both parents should play an important role in the child's infancy, especially one with Down's syndrome, well I guess you can call me a sexist.

No, you're sexist because you believe she can't be VP and a good mother. You've never once raised the concern about Obama's kids. The fact that they're not special needs doesn't mean they don't need just as much attention from their parents.

Quote:I'm not trying to keep a woman out of office; I'm not trying to keep a woman in the home; I'm not saying that a woman can't hold a job.

No. You're just saying this woman can't do the job because of what you've mapped out in your mind as her "acceptable" role as the mother of a special needs child.

jh Wrote:Have you really not read anything about her? She was initially a supporter of both the incumbant mayor of Wasilla & govenor of Alaska until she decided to unseat them. They got on her bad side, they wound up unemployed.

Oh wait, you are serious!

I would address that part, but if you don't understand that then maybe there is just no hope.

On the others....Yep, they say she in some way shape or form caused some corrupt people to be un-employed. I don't have a problem with that, but I could see where the democrats would.

This is an incredibly funny thread, but how many are secretly hoping that Sarah Palin has a Janet Jackson moment during one of the speeches while she's nursing Trig. And there are plenty of commercial fishmen along the Chesapeake Bay right outside of DC. And what's really, really funny is that Barak Obama has READ a lot about foreign policy, but had to get a Vice President who knew something about it. So, let's go with the theory that he gets elected and Joe Biden drops dead, Obama is about as experienced in foreign policy as Sarah Palin. Now let's see, if something happens to John McCain, Palin gets to choose her own Vice President. She could choose Colin Powell, Condi Rice, Joe Lieberman, Joe Biden, Hillary Clinton, Dick Lugar, the list is endless. Then in essence, she would be in the same place as Barak Obama. Except she didn't live in Indonesia and attend a Muslim school.

GrayBeard Wrote:

jh Wrote:Have you really not read anything about her? She was initially a supporter of both the incumbant mayor of Wasilla & govenor of Alaska until she decided to unseat them. They got on her bad side, they wound up unemployed.

Oh wait, you are serious!

I would address that part, but if you don't understand that then maybe there is just no hope.

On the others....Yep, they say she in some way shape or form caused some corrupt people to be un-employed. I don't have a problem with that, but I could see where the democrats would.

Why did you stop the quote where you did? Why leave out the part where I said some of the people she replaced were justified, some were petty, & some were just politics? Or where I further clarified that I thought she was a highly skilled politician & agreed with Owl 69/70/75 that she would do just fine at explaining why she was a worthy VP choice? I'm honestly curious why you are trying to make it sound like I'm criticizing her, when I've done nothing of the sort in this thread.

Will recap what I just posted on another thread. I think the handlers are scared she'll screw up, so they're trying to keep her under wraps. I think that's a mistake, I think she needs to get out and go on the offensive before the negative innuendos pile too high.

What I think they need to do is pick a hot issue where she has some expertise, and make her the point person. Energy comes to mind. It's big. She's got more experience with it than McCain, Obama, and Biden combined. She's won a few battles with big oil, which no US politician has really done since the breakup of Standard Oil in 1911. And right now Paris Hilton has a better energy plan than either major party. Seriously, very seriously.

I'd use her VP acceptance speech to roll out the McCain energy plan, if I were making the decision. Get her in a high-visibility spot, talking about a high-visibility issue, that she just happens to know a lot about. I think that would quiet a lot of the skepticism faster than anything else.

EastStang Wrote:This is an incredibly funny thread, but how many are secretly hoping that Sarah Palin has a Janet Jackson moment during one of the speeches while she's nursing Trig.

Actually I think she should save the Janet Jackson moment for the first time she meets Putin. Given his well-chronicled weaknesses in that area, who knows what concessions she might be able to get from him.

Somebody posted that after her first meeting with him, the Russians might get Alaska back. After seeing a few photos of Alina, I'm thinking that instead we might end up with Cuba.

It wouldn't surprise me if more people watch her speech tomorrow night than McCain's speech Thursday night. She's certainly under more pressure than McCain who has sort of become the forgotten person in Minneapolis.

But CNN just said she is an ocean of calm amidst all the chaos. She may focus on the issues but I suspect she'll make light of some of the bloggers too (probably early in the speech). She may also attack the media for an intrusion of her privacy - McCain's speech writer has been helping write the speech the past two days so that's why she has disappeared from public view.

Fort Bend Owl Wrote:But CNN just said she is an ocean of calm amidst all the chaos.

This doesn't surprise me at all. Of all the politicians left, she strikes me as the one I'd want on my side if I needed to get something done.

For the comprehension impaired, that means I think she's very good at what she does and is in no way intended as a slight to the Barracuda.

smn1256 Wrote:Who the hell watches Larry King any more?

I don't, I was just watching CNN to see what was up with Gustav.

However, apparently John McCain hopes you do, since he was scheduled to go on Larry King tonight on CNN. Unfortunately he's cancelled the interview, claiming his staffer was treated unfairly in the segment about Palin that 69/70/75 referenced above.

Here's that interview, if you want to decide for yourself.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UYYiw_y2q...smemo.com/