Posts by giovanni tiso
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
I think we need to acknowledge that KOS got it half right
Conceding no such thing, see the other thread.
-
Prediction:
I have a chilling feeling you might be right.
-
But to say it again, to the extent the story is "Palin hushes up daughter's pregnancy" the Daily Kos had it right.
Yours is an incredibly generous reading of a despicable piece of writing that I invite you to go back and re-read. The link is either somewhere in this thread or in the Go US thread (Graeme I think posted it originally). If you think that "they hushed something up" is a saving grace, then your stomach is plenty stronger than mine, my friend.
The story, in fact, had it all wrong. It alleged criminal and appaling behaviour, when in fact the actual behaviour was, you know, perfectly natural and fine. Sex among consenting teenagers and conception out of wedlock - is it something the liberals are going to attack now?
And what do you mean that the pregnancy was hushed up? Where's the duty of disclosure? Are children's personal choices fair game now too? Can I reiterate that we don't need to mirror republican behaviour in our attacks? Plus, you know, they'll embarass themselves if we leave them to it.
So simply asking whether the second half of the original story is potentially true is harmless.Especially when we are posting comments to a small (sorry PA!) blog in a distant country.
It's not as if I can't see that I might have got this completely out of proportion. But go and reread the Kos diary. I had strong flashes of messieur Faurisson when I read it, I was honestly quite incensed. I'm not accusing anybody of Holocaust denial here, let me be super-clear. But what the hell are we doing discussing this garbage? What good does it serve? Are the subjects not actual people? Are the accusations not preposterous, the arguments used not vile and sexist? Is it not, at the end of the day, completely and utterly disproven and wrong?
I have a beautifully crafted and articulate argument somewhere in my head about the role of PA in the national discussion and the fact that our distance from the geographical centre of the events is immaterial. But at the moment all that my synapses have come up is: grmrmmrbbdffff. If the clouds should clear, I'll let you know.
-
Did I miss something? The link above pointed to them being released in 1999 when he was vying with W for the Republican nomination.
Well, yes, obviously you missed all the health that has occurred to him between 1999 and 2008.
And btw, no, Biden hasn't released his health records yet, and they ought to be more interesting than Palin's since he had an aneurysm. The campaign has said they will be released at an unspecified later date. Link.
I take your earlier point about why we should care about Palin's birthing choices, Russell said much the same the other day, but I respectfully disagree that it's fair game. Not from the pro-choice camp, at least - she doesn't owe us her health nor that of her unborn child, I would have thought. And the story is pretty murky, a mix of self-aggrandizing on her part and the usual crap reporting we get when it comes to these medical issues.
-
But the other part -- Palin's risky behaviour -- "came out" in an ordinary newspaper, back in April, and, as I noted, an obstetrician was quoted saying (I paraphrase): WTF?
You persist in thinking it's any of your business, which mistifies me a bit. Also, why is the opinion of a random obstetrician important, and that of her own doctor isn't? To reiterate, the fact that he told her to not give the speech and take a rest (as opposed to finding herself some local care in the expectation of giving birth) indicates to me neither of them thought she was anywhere near active labour.
Why doesn't Palin just do it now? It is interesting.
I don't know. Has Biden released his? McCain's took ages to be released. Partly it has to do with the fact that they need some time to be assembled. She's been a candidate for how long, four days?
But you're persisting with the insanity. What are you expecting to find in these records?
-
Chelsea Clinton was roughly the same age as Bristol when John McCain made this joke about her. Offensive, homophobic, a nasty crack about a young woman's appearance, and COMPLETELY gratuitous, but the world kept spinning on its axis.
Especially as far as you and me are concerned, yes.
-
Please! You're one of PAS's most articulate posters; I'm sure you can converse without swearing at me.
I've been articulate for the last ten pages or so. It's got me exactly nowhere. And your Pynchonian fascination is an attempt at playing it cute which I'm not inclined to buy. I chose the word that reflected that state of mind more accurately and succinctly.
At the other end of your meta-elucubrations, are two women whose life is going to be hard enough in the next little while. They're going to be copping a lot from their own side, and them are the breaks; I'd like my side to show a whole different attitude. And not just because it's the politically intelligent thing to do (although it is that too). But because it's the decent thing to do. And no, I don't think it's the kind of thing that can be discussed in good fun, without complicity.
, but think of the context. It's not as if Edwards would have run for President knowing that something like his affair would have come out. They do it anyway.
Hoping that an affair won't be discovered is a risk. Knowing that your medical records are going to become public means a 100% chance of getting caught.
Although, for the umpteenth time, you know, Sarah Palin was pregnant with Trig. And I invite you not so much to look at the photo, but to read the testimony of the Alaskan journalists.
So long as you want a meta-layer to consider, I personally find it very interesting that multiple testimonies (the various medical personnel whose silence we are assuming, and the people with no personal stake who came out and confirmed she was pregnant) are always considered inconsequential, whereas photos - that can be doctored in no time - are 'proof'. Go figure.
But in the meantime why not let the liberals dig themselves a Washington monument-sized grave?
I sense I'm a handy target for something else you're angry about, and that we're actually on the same page. Could you explain? Without swear words?
You're far from a handy target, I admire you're writing a great deal. But true, I'm angry at this whole thing obiovusly, and especially angry at the fact that it didn't come out on the National Enquirer, but on Daily Kos, which love it or hate is a major organiser of progressive causes and campaigns. The longer all these liberal voices (Sullivan is another) stew in this particular pot, the more... tattery? their reputation will be at the end of it all, and the easier it will be to paint Obama as complicit - he's already had to come out on this like a ton of bricks. He needs this to stop now.
Handy distraction, too, from Bristol's pregnancy in and of itself. My personal theory: they didn't know she was pregnant. At least not McCain. I just don't buy it.
-
Because that is what many US presidential candidates actually do.
And she will, in due course, naturally. Which is another strong indication that the conspiracy theory is unfounded - it's not as if she would have accepted the nomination knowing that something like that would have come out.
But in the meantime why not let the liberals dig themselves a Washington monument-sized grave?
-
here's a hug for Giovanni
I just look at your Gravatar and it's all the help I need.
Interesting piece, including the part that describes exactly what happened in this very forum:There's a weird pivot on this story. What started as 'she wasn't pregnant!' is morphing into Palin getting attacked for her choice (after talking to her doctor) to go back home to Alaska after her amniotic fluid began a small leak.
Except for the detail that her doctor had told her to put her feet up, not to fly home. (But even that advice is inconsistent with the idea that they realised she was in actual labour).
Kos not deleting the diary is and will remain a stain on the netroots movement in the US for some time to come, methinks.
-
Because pregnant women always know exactly how pregnant they are?
They do by five months, the scans will do the trick. But in this case it's moot: since you're theory is a coverup, the five months wouldn't be an innocently reached guess but a timespan carefully designed to prove that she couldn't have given birth to Trig.
I'm not "banging on about it," I'm trying to puzzle out the basis for the enthusiastic embrace of it. It's meta.
Bullshit.