I'm not surprised. Some of the comments are very interesting.rn79870 wrote:There is always controversy when an election is on the horizon, and that controversy is not limited to any one party. After surfing the web, I came across this article that claims Sarah is not the mother of the 4 month old child she claims as hers. Whether she is the mother or not is her business, not anyone else's, however if she is lying about it, it needs to be known.
http://www.dailykos.com/story/...80223
Link is to the article along with the pictures of Sarah in her 5th, 6th and 7th month of pregnancy. After looking at the pictures, what do you think?
No, to the OP and telcoman.Jager wrote:z was that pointed toward me? if so i must protest.
Sure why not.szhosain wrote:
No, to the OP and telcoman.
Linking to rumor-mongering, hate sites can easily lead to problems ... do you want to see the ones on Obama?
Z
So Z shall we ignore everything except rosy sweet stuff? It's on the internet. It's documented with photographs, and it is logically presented with fact and circumstance. I agree that whether or not she really was pregnant is immaterial and her personal business, however, if she stands up and lies to the public, we need to know. We both know that if the dems lied to the American public about whether or not they had sex with a consenting adult, the reps would scream. Turn about is fair play. Did she lie or not, that is the question here, nothing more.szhosain wrote:Unreal.
Now you are stooping to the worst kind of rumor-mongering that we can bring to attack any woman running for office. Is this the Democratic way? Classic!
Do you guys really feel that linking or quoting this hate site was necessary?
I just lost any vestige of respect I had for you all ... you are not objective at all.
And I now discount everything you all say or believe in!
Z
That site is doing nothing by posturing innuendo and borderline libel. It is not a guarantee of facts and the "logic" is pretty darn flawed. Classic low tactics that are beneath contempt, really.rn79870 wrote:So Z shall we ignore everything except rosy sweet stuff? It's on the internet. It's documented with photographs, and it is logically presented with fact and circumstance. I agree that whether or not she really was pregnant is immaterial and her personal business, however, if she stands up and lies to the public, we need to know. We both know that if the dems lied to the American public about whether or not they had sex with a consenting adult, the reps would scream. Turn about is fair play. Did she lie or not, that is the question here, nothing more.
Wasn't the big issue with President Clinton was his saying "I did not have sex with that woman"rn79870 wrote:
So Z shall we ignore everything except rosy sweet stuff? It's on the internet. It's documented with photographs, and it is logically presented with fact and circumstance. I agree that whether or not she really was pregnant is immaterial and her personal business, however, if she stands up and lies to the public, we need to know. We both know that if the dems lied to the American public about whether or not they had sex with a consenting adult, the reps would scream. Turn about is fair play. Did she lie or not, that is the question here, nothing more.
So, you think the story is true already, huhn? And, indeed, playing connect-a-dot to Clinton's acts in the Presidency ... how sad!telcoman wrote:Wasn't the big issue with President Clinton was his saying "I did not have sex with that woman"
If Sarah's daughter did in fact have a baby, she should have been following President Clinton's example and had oral sex. Oh wait, no contraception! I think her mom wouldn't approve that either.
How about that. Teenagers in Alaska having sex. Sex education, probably not
It's a valid, well documented article with photographic evidence that clearly calls into question whether or not she was actually pregnant. Again, whether or not she was is her private business, however, if she has already started lying to the American public, then we need to be aware of that. If you'd take a little impartial look you might see why there is such a question.szhosain wrote:Come to think of it, I think I now want you guys to push this contemptible story even harder.
It is going to come crashing down around your ears.
The Democrats are really getting scared of the McCain Palin ticket now!
Z
Why the hell would she fake being pregnant, fake a problem with the pregnancy, and then not do anything about the problem? Does that make sense? However, I know a lot of Christians that leave these things "up to God". How are we supposed to know if she received treatment in Dallas? For all we know, a doctor came and took care of the problem before she left. I love how the author assumes they have ALL the information.Article wrote:hen early Friday morning at 4:00am, Sarah began leaking amniotic fluid. Instead of checking into a hospital, she instead made a call to her doctor, and delivered the keynote speech.
What happened to a woman's right to choose? Does that only apply to whether or not to have the baby? Not where she chooses to have it? Wouldn't you be more comfortable having your doctor deliver your child? Furthermore, if the child was born in Texas, it would have made things complicated for him. My little brother was born in Florida to New Yorker parents, and the paperwork is a mess anytime he tries to do things at the state level, as he must put down that he is not a native New Yorker, despite living here for all but 3 months of his life. When he needed a duplicate birth certificate, it too months to get it by mail form Broward General.article wrote:The inherent need to absolutely have Trig delivered in a remote and possibly ill-equipped facility for premature deliveries,
I would ask the writer not to assume their speculation as truth, and grant us the same courtesy.Article wrote:We simply ask that she be forthright, honest, and not waste our time with such juvenile games that anyone with eyes can see as fabrication.
Sorry, but I don't lie to my wife. She asked me if she put on weight, I said yes. She knew I was brutally honest when we got together, and it is one of the things she always says she loves about me.themadscientist wrote:Dude, I hope your wife never reads that. You will be having your mail forwarded to the couch!
I am fully ok with the possibility it is her daughter's baby. It is a non-issue that the dams hope hurts her. they are willing to drag her daughter into the swill that is politics which shows who they are and what they are about.
Of course it is. It's merely circumstantial evidence at best.OriginalWheelman wrote:Ok I read the article. It's based on speculation, and hearsay.
Coupled with the photographic evidence, so they say, the mother covered for her teen aged daughter. And lied to toe public about it. That's fine if she isn't in public office.OriginalWheelman wrote:Why the hell would she fake being pregnant, fake a problem with the pregnancy, and then not do anything about the problem?
That wasn't the only thing, it was also the 5 to 8 months the daughter took off from school. (at the same time).OriginalWheelman wrote:The photo's of her daughter "being pregnant" are ridiculous. They state that she is pregnant by the way the fat is on her stomach? Um.. my wife has almost the same stomach and I'm sure she isn't pregnant. As for "Her chest is puffed out, a sign that she is contracting her stomach muscles", gee maybe because she thinks she looks fat!
And you're absolutely correct, it is unproven speculation. It is still in rumor form and too new for Palin to have commented on. We should give her every benefit until she speaks about this. (and she should to clear it up).OriginalWheelman wrote:I would ask the writer not to assume their speculation as truth, and grant us the same courtesy.
On the contrary, they are scrambling ... now very concerned about the outcome. Else, they would not stoop to such contemptible tactics.rn79870 wrote:Dems are not upset about her selection, not at all.
Yeah, I am straight with my wife too. Glad to see other people with an honest relationship.OriginalWheelman wrote:
Sorry, but I don't lie to my wife. She asked me if she put on weight, I said yes. She knew I was brutally honest when we got together, and it is one of the things she always says she loves about me.
I've seen women that don't look 9 months pregnant at 9 months, and I've seen women who look 9 months pregnant at 2 months. Without pictures of her other pregnancies it is impossible to tell from the photos. Furthermore, photos of her in clothes can't really tell the picture. Every outfit wears differently, and sometimes with the right outfit you can hide a belly that big.rn79870 wrote:Coupled with the photographic evidence, so they say, the mother covered for her teen aged daughter. And lied to toe public about it. That's fine if she isn't in public office.
Suspicious, yes. Condemning, no. I had a lung infection for 8 months, it kept jumping around between my sinuses and my lungs, finally ending with me having my tonsils removed at 26. Sometime sicknesses last a lot longer than normal. It all comes down to how strong the person's immune system is, and how strong the illness is. Oh, and it is common for a cold climate to extend an illness as it takes away from the efficiency of the immune system. I can't expect you to have known that living as far south as you do, but here in NY, it's common knowledge that illnesses last longer in winter.rn79870 wrote:That wasn't the only thing, it was also the 5 to 8 months the daughter took off from school. (at the same time).
But if she denies it, will people believe her? OR will they call it "more dishonesty from the republicans".rn79870 wrote:And you're absolutely correct, it is unproven speculation. It is still in rumor form and too new for Palin to have commented on. We should give her every benefit until she speaks about this. (and she should to clear it up).