What's up with anti-Palin bias in the Mass Media?

[gretske]

Yup. Downright panic.

Beyond panic. The GOP has a smart, clever rock star, and the Dems are shakin' in their Birkenstocks. They have relied on rock star Obama to sell generalities and platitudes, avoiding specifics at all costs. Now, the Repubs have their own rock star, and the Dems can't stand it. So, they do the only thing they can do, set loose a fury of personal attacks. May not work this time, the American voter LOVES Say-rah!

BTW, over 8000 pages of William Ayers documents about Obama's involvement in his revolutionary foundation have been released. We will now find out the truth of Barack's relationship to this despicable murderer.

 

[Playboypenguin]

Now, you're not being consistent---you always scream for proof but when you are asked, you offer none.

Do not make that charge without citing an example. When have I ever made an assertion of fact that I did not back up?

 

[Webleymkv]

When have I ever made an assertion of fact that I did not back up?

I believe that he's referring to this assertion in post # 84

If people want to play the "character" card on either side, which they often do, how are such topics off limits? If one side would love for you to believe their candidate is the more "moral" choice doesn't that open them up to having their private lives examined closely?

and this one in post # 86

I am being completely consistant. They have played up Palin's religious convictions so it is fair game to see if she lives by those convictions. Just as it would be with anyone on the other side.

and then this statement and the lack of a link in post # 88

Gee...I guess you are not watching the news then since they mention her "strong religious convictions" at almost every chance they get. Do not ask me to overcome the fact that you have your head buried in the sand...or worse...don't have cable.

to be fair, saying "you must not be watching the news" seems awfully similar "go look it up yourself."

 

[dipper]

Just start here Playboy,
Who in the McCain campaign said anything about Palin being "more moral"?

If people want to play the "character" card on either side, which they often do, how are such topics off limits? If one side would love for you to believe their candidate is the more "moral" choice doesn't that open them up to having their private lives examined closely?

I'm asking YOU to prove who said that Palin is more moral---I haven't seen that.
YOU always ask for proof of statements and I'm doing the same thing.
That's alright with you isn't it??

Dipper

 

[Playboypenguin]

Those would be poor example since the first remark does not even address any individual but simply makes a point of fair practice and the second is true. I just heard it again a few minutes ago on CN how she is a woman of "strong religious convictions" who brings strong "family values" and "anti-abortion views" to the ticket.

I'm asking YOU to prove who said that Palin is more moral---I haven't seen that.

Find where I said Palin is being portrayed as "moral" I was making point of principle and never mentioned anyone by name. I said "If people" and even said "on either side."

I did go on to point out that they have put her religious values on the block, which they did even during the convention, and that makes the facts of whether she just talks the talk or walks the walk fair game...as it would with any candidate. She herself has opened herself up with religious statements like saying the Iraq war is a "task from God" and that she would support teaching creationism in schools.

 

[dipper]

I also have never heard anyone connected with the McCain campaign use the words anti-abortion.

Dipper

 

[dipper]

Playin your game here playboy,

As you like to say, WHAT PEOPLE??

Dipper

 

[Playboypenguin]

As you like to say, WHAT PEOPLE?

Any person. No one is above being questioned. Especially if they portray themselves as being moral or christian. If you want to put forth an image you have to be able to prove you actually live up to that image. if you cannot withstand the scrutiny do not make the statements. That goes for people on either side.

You can't simply yell "unfair" just because you do not want to answer the question. Like I said...hiding behind the high ground is still hiding.

 

[dipper]

You're dancing here Playboy.

 

[Playboypenguin]

You're dancing here Playboy.

No, you simply missed the original point and now misinterpret the explanation as well.

 

[Webleymkv]

PBP, not necessarily disagreeing but just playing devil's advocate here.

Those would be poor example since the first remark does not even address any individual but simply makes a point of fair practice and the second is true. I just heard it again a few minutes ago on CN how she is a woman of "strong religious convictions" who brings strong "family values" and "anti-abortion views" to the ticket.

If Palin's religious stance is a common knowledge as you suggest, surely it wouldn't be hard to find a link supporting that point. Secondly, is her religious stance something she herself has made public or is that simply the way the media has chosen to portray her? Certainly Obama has been portrayed as many things that may not be entirely true, accurate, or in context.

She herself has opened herself up with religious statements like saying the Iraq war is a "task from God" and that she would support teaching creationism in schools.

Both of these seem like they could very easily be out of context. Could it be that she believes that the Iraq war is a "task from God" because we supported Saddam Hussein and helped him rise to power during the Iran-Iraq war? Perhaps she believes that God is of the opinion that we need to clean up our own mess. Perhaps she believes that our purpose is not to stamp out Islam but to liberate the Iraqi people from a Tyrant. How does she propose creationism be taught in schools? Does she propose replacing evolution entirely or presenting them both as competing theories?

 

[Playboypenguin]

If Palin's religious stance is a common knowledge as you suggest, surely it wouldn't be hard to find a link supporting that point.

No, if all you are looking for is proof of her being portrayed as a religious woman that is easy to find links supporting it. Just Google "Sarah Palin" and "religious" and you will get a ton of examples.

I am not even saying she portrays herself as religious but her party sure does. She doesn't help herself when she supports teaching creationism in schools. Schools are not for religious studies. That is for the home and church. She also tends to invoke her understanding of "God's will" a lot. She asked voters to pray for the pipeline since it is "God's will", she said she would "work to implement God's will from the governor's office", and that the Iraq war is a "task from god."

Palin quotes...

On the pipeline

"God's will has to be done in unifying people and companies to get that gas line built, so pray for that,"

On the Iraq war

"Our national leaders are sending them out on a task that is from God," she said. "That's what we have to make sure that we're praying for, that there is a plan and that plan is God's plan."

General statement on job performance

"But really all of that stuff doesn't do any good if the people of Alaska's heart isn't right with God."

These might be statements taken out of context or made to be bigger than they are but she should still have to answer to them.

 

[ArachnoSoldier]

I'm not big on her "Task from God" comment, but I still support the Mccain/Palin effort. Atheist do fight in foxholes by the way, and sometimes we just have to ignore the shrapnel.

 

[Webleymkv]

No, if all you are looking for is proof of her being portrayed as a religious woman that is easy to find links supporting it. Just Google "Sarah Palin" and "religious" and you will get a ton of examples.

I think you're missing the point. The burden of proof to support a claim generally lies on the person making it, not those who question it. Just like Gov Palin is responsible for answering for her own statements rather than placing the burden on others to disprove them.

I am not even saying she portrays herself as religious but her party sure does. She doesn't help herself when she supports teaching creationism in schools. Schools are not for religious studies. That is for the home and church.

What's wrong with teaching Creationism so long as it's presented as a theory and not fact? Personally, I don't take issue with the fact that Evolution is taught in schools, but that it's often presented as fact which it is not (it, like Creationism has been neither proved nor disproved and is therefore still a theory). I personally think that both should be taught and presented as what they are so that the students and their parents can make the decision as to what to believe.

She also tends to invoke her understanding of "God's will" a lot. She asked voters to pray for the pipeline since it is "God's will", she said she would "work to implement God's will from the governor's office", and that the Iraq war is a "task from god."

Palin quotes...

On the pipeline

Quote:
"God's will has to be done in unifying people and companies to get that gas line built, so pray for that,"

On the Iraq war
"Our national leaders are sending them out on a task that is from God," she said. "That's what we have to make sure that we're praying for, that there is a plan and that plan is God's plan."

General statement on job performance

Quote:
"But really all of that stuff doesn't do any good if the people of Alaska's heart isn't right with God."

These might be statements taken out of context or made to be bigger than they are but she should still have to answer to them.

Yet again you provide information without verifiable sources. If I said that Obama is a radical Muslim you'd expect me to provide verifiable sources to back that statement up rather than just saying "Well, you can Google Obama and Muslim and it'll come up." It's a two way street you know.

 

[Playboypenguin]

What's wrong with teaching Creationism so long as it's presented as a theory and not fact?

Because it is not based on fact at all. It is based on faith. It is not science it is religion. There is already a place to teach it and it is called church. Should we also teach the Muslim or Buddhist faiths in public schools?

Yet again you provide information without verifiable sources.

Did you even bother to try and verify it yourself or are you finding it easier to play the "intellectual laziness" game. All that is easily found from the associated press since it was part of public speeches made by Palin.

I am also getting a bit confused by some people. Are you taking the stance that she is NOT a devoutly christian woman?

 

[dipper]

Yet again you provide information without verifiable sources. If I said that Obama is a radical Muslim you'd expect me to provide verifiable sources to back that statement up rather than just saying "Well, you can Google Obama and Muslim and it'll come up." It's a two way street you know.

No, Playboy doesn't KNOW it is a two way street.
That's my point.

Should we also teach the Muslim or Buddhist faiths in public schools?

No, we just give them prayer time---in the school-- and foot washing stations.



Dipper

 

[Playboypenguin]

No, Playboy doesn't KNOW it is a two way street.

What I apparently don't understand is why some people cannot look things up for themselves instead of needing to be spoon fed. The first thing I do when someone makes a statement I find suspect is try to look it up myself to either prove it or disprove it. If I cannot find anything I will then ask where they found their information. I do not play the attack the messenger game. It is low class.

Here is one link. You can use the quotes themselves to find more links.
http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5jNulPSqaP1eyysv8ENJWhk0ZSrPgD92VJPL00

 

[dipper]

What I apparently don't understand is why some people cannot look things up for themselves instead of needing to be spoon fed. The first thing I do when someone makes a statement I find suspect is try to look it up myself to either prove it or disprove it. If I cannot find anything I will then ask where they found their information. I do not play the attack the messenger game. It is low class.

So, the next time you yell---WHAT PEOPLE? or WHAT PROOF?
Look it up will be a satisfactory answer for you.
Yeah, I bet!!

AND, in keeping within the bounds of the above quote,
I say:
I can't find anywhere were anyone in the McCain campaign said that Sara Palin is "more moral" than anyone.
I looked and had no success.
I also couldn't find anyone in the McCain campaign that said she is anti-abortion.
So I ask again, can YOU show me where these things are in print?
Can you direct me to a link?

OH, and notice I said McCain campaign and not DailyKos---you know---not an opinion by anyone, something the candidate said or someone in the campaign.

Dipper

 

[Playboypenguin]

So, the next time you yell---WHAT PEOPLE? or WHAT PROOF?

I think that was you...not me. It is easy to tell us apart. I am the more articulate and better looking one.

I can't find anywhere were anyone in the McCain campaign said that Sara Palin is "more moral" than anyone.
I looked and had no success.
I also couldn't find anyone in the McCain campaign that said she is anti-abortion.

Once again, I never said they did say she was more moral. I was making a point of principle.

As for her anti-abortion stance that is very easy to find if you bothered to look. She clearly states in her election bid that she is opposed to all forms of abortion except in extreme cases where both the mother and child's lives are in danger.

 

[dipper]

No playboy, you always yell for proof and ask what people what experts etc. etc. ALWAYS.

Just trying to play on your field is all.
SO, what say you?

dipper