Politics p3

[strredwolf]

Okay, the best thing about the web is that folks will link to their sources to back up their claims.

But then, the Internet as a whole is turning Democratic from what I see.  Oh well, more info is better, especially when the Republican position is to restrict information (Pro RIAA, anti Net Neutrality).

So here's another Republican bash for you.  Remember that VP Canidate Sarah Palin has a fifth child with Down syndrome, detected in the womb?

Daily Kos blogger ArcXIX (obviously not his real name) says that it's not her child.  The kid is her grandson, borne to her barely-adult daughter.

Now, you'll want proof.  Photos and video are provided on the two articles here and here.

All I can say is this:  He's got a good point.  Females visibly thicken up while pregnant.  She doesn't look it on the fifth go around, and an earlier one she definitely looked it -- I think she nearly tripled in size back-to-front!

Enough of "babygate" from me.

Comments

[caesarsalad77.livejournal.com]

That would be fascinating to me.

[stormydragon.livejournal.com]

>from what I see

I'm reminded of the infamous story of the New York socialite commenting that she couldn't understand how Reagan has won the election, since no one she knew had voted for him. I suspect your feeling that the web is turning more Democrat says more about the type of sites you frequent than about the political views of the online community as a whole.

[drmercurious.livejournal.com]

Actually, the people who didn't vote for Regan didn't vote -- period.

[mike-fang.livejournal.com]

Amen to that. Not to meantion, no offense Red, but your language indicates that you have a severe bias against Republicans. And while I admit I can't prove it, I'd have to question the legitimacy of a story that comes from a blog rather than a credible news source with an established reputation.

[strredwolf.livejournal.com]

No offense taken. I'm seeing the Republicans limiting choices down to a select few, when more choices would allow for a more agile country. Plus, alot of policies seem to be against the American ideal. I could go on.

On the blog post's legitimacy, I can't comment. I do see your concern over it. Worth some investigation, though.

[kazriko.livejournal.com]

I'm seeing the Republicans limiting choices down to a select few, when more choices would allow for a more agile country. Plus, alot of policies seem to be against the American ideal.

I'm still baffled.

A. where have the republicans limited choices where the democrats haven't?

B. what policies are against the American ideal, short of those that the Democrats agree with that are pro big government. (Both parties are going against the American Ideal, in my view.)

[kazriko.livejournal.com]

You have a point there. Usually the political blogs on the web are balkanized in such a way that there's little interaction between the two. When you see a link in the conservative side to the liberal side, it's usually to the most extreme, outrageous liberal sites imaginable and the most absurd, ridiculous positions imaginable.

Sadly, the links in the post above have filtered over to the conservative blogs with appropriate outrage in incredulity. ;)

[kazriko.livejournal.com]

But then, the Internet as a whole is turning Democratic from what I see. Oh well, more info is better, especially when the Republican position is to restrict information (Pro RIAA, anti Net Neutrality).

Do you SERIOUSLY believe this? Really? From my perspective, the ones that are doing the most to restrict freedom of speech are the democrats!

Calling the Republicans Pro-RIAA is a red herring, because BOTH parties are Pro-RIAA. They're all right in the jacket pocket of "big copyright."

Net Neutrality is about censorship and information restriction only in the imagination of the Net Neutrality fanatics. While they make good political hay out of "Net Neutrality prevents Censorship" it really is nothing of the sort. It's about allowing companies to pay for preferential bandwidth over what the customer is paying for directly. There's nothing in it that would say that you couldn't go to any website at all, after all, you're paying for your bandwidth and can go anywhere you want with that bandwidth. It just allows others to pay for bandwidth on your behalf as well.

To counter this, the Democrats and a handful of the big government republicans are trying to bring back the Fairness doctrine, and extend it out so that it also covers the internet. The Fairness doctrine is actually anything but Fair. It says that if you had a website and you expressed any political leanings whatsoever, you would have to allow someone from an opposing viewpoint (Because there are only two viewpoints on any given subject according to the Democrats) to go on YOUR website and state their opinion with equal time and gravity on your site as your opinion.

http://www.businessandmedia.org/printer/2008/20080812160747.aspx

On the Palin thing, It's really absurd. There's tons of pictures showing Palin pregnant with him in interviews... And if she did that for her daughter's first baby, why not the second since the left is making such a big fuss about this.

The real reason they're bringing this up is that the republicans nominating a female doesn't fit with the media's worldview, that Democrats are the pious ones who always do their best for women and minorities, so they have to besmirch and destroy anyone the republicans appoints and make them out to be a traitor to their (race/gender) because it upstages their preferred pious party. They did this to Clarence Thomas, and now they're doing it to Sarah Palin.

[kazriko.livejournal.com]

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/lee-stranahan/anchorage-tv-station-pali_b_123029.html << Pregnant during TV interviews while governor, from another liberal bastion site, Huffington Post.