| User | Comment |
|---|
Melf    |
That's not up to me, but I can't see any reason why some topics shouldn't be discussed. A person's past is what makes their present. |
| Melf |
Hurrah for aphorisms! |
dab   |
I think that attacking a candidate's under-age (even college age) children is off-limits. Chelsea was mostly left alone, as were the Bush twins. Any candidate who failed to respect that boundary would be unlikely to get my vote. |
| they |
I heard a man say once that because Bush was allowed to win the last election, Democrats must be willing parties to vote-changing.
It made me start to feel a little paranoid... and now I'm 80% convinced that this is all just a show for all of us..... that it doesn't matter who is president. So nothing should be off-limits... because the information is there to be had -- they put it there to keep us entertained and busy where it doesn't matter while they do corrupt things where it does matter.
|
| Enheduanna |
Yes, rampant stupidity should be off-limits in a presidential election.
Nancy Pelosi was 67 and not still raising children (including a pregnant 17-year-old and a four-month-old with Downs syndrome) when she became Speaker of the House, and she's been in Congress since 1987. Why on earth are you comparing treatment of her to treatment of Palin? The issue, for once, isn't just whether a woman is up for these jobs. I'm not agreeing with the focus on Palin's family, or whether her role as a mother will interfere with her job performance (or vice versa), especially in terms of time. I'm simply pointing out that there's no comparison between her and Pelosi and there's no reason why any of these questions would have been asked of Pelosi, since she was at a very different stage in her life when she became Speaker. |
bill  |
Anything is fair game. But, part of the game is that if you make a low-blow, you may suffer backlash for it.
I think if anything is made truly off-limits, people will just focus on it more.
You can't censor the press. But, you can complain about the press. |
| cloudhugger | | posted 5-Sep-2008 10:10am |
You mean those that think Obama has muslim ties are wrong and have been poven wrong?!?!?!
It's the human race we are talking about. All it takes is one rumor to change the entire course of an election. I'm sorry, but people can be so shallow, so stupid, and so unethical. Like voting for Palin because she is waman and completely not listening to the scary crap coming out of her mouth. There is a clouded veil over the eyes of all who choose not to see the truth. It's easier to jump on a bandwagon and go for the ride, then deny the wheel falls off and a bunch of people die, than it's all about heros that saved each other, wagon goes full speed ahead and than the wagon gets lost and than the crying starts about needing money to get back on track. The money ends up in the pockets of the 'named ones' sitting on the best pile of straw telling the others what to do, creating the illusion so no one figures out the wagon wasn't really lost by desperately tossing out food so there is more room for money, than the ass pulling the wagon dies and more money is needed by everyone on the wagon got so fat from money they cannot walk anymore so they need a bigger stronger ass, one more powerful than the asses in Russia, (like that makes any difference) Time is wasted, more money needed, waiting for the ultimate ass to pull the bandwagon so everyone can see who is who because 'anybody who is somebody' is on the wagon. Fudge the wagon, the wagon never should have left the rest of the party.
|
Matty  |
Not directly raising children doesn't mean you don't have direct reponsibilities concerning your children. My parents have more troubles with my brother now than when he was a teenager. They spend more time and money dealing with his irresponsibility than they do with anything else in their lives. To suggest that parenting ends when your children become adults seems a little short-sided to me. How many grandparents have become day-care providers for their daughters and sons? The US Census bureau is predicting almost 15%. My own parents offered to defray my day-care costs when we were transferring from NY to DC; I simply refused to take their help because of the situation with my brother. How many grandparents have also become Savings and Loan companies for their financially irresponsible sons and daughters? My parents have spent 20 grand on lawyers and other crap for my brother. I have "loaned" my brother money simply to maintain my own security clearance. After all, money buys justice.
No comparison between Pelosi and Palin...not at all.
Having said that, I certainly acknowledge that having under age children often requires more direct time than having adult children, and I also acknowledge that the 2 scenarios are not completely analgous. But at the end of the day, 5 kids is 5 kids.
At any rate, the point is what is good for the goose becomes off-limts to certain ganders. Given that, can we decide there are some topics that are of so low value, they should be disregarded? That was the question. |
| cloudhugger | | (reply to bill) posted 5-Sep-2008 10:12am |
Who reports the complaints about the press? |
| bill |
the watchmen? |
| LJD | | posted 5-Sep-2008 10:29am |
Children are off limits.
I believe anyone that is leading the country SHOULD be of HIGH MORAL FIBER.
Obama may have been cleared of terrorist ties, but he is still a Muslim, through and through. And if any American believes a Muslim should be leading this great nation, they are more worse off than I thought. Americans have become sheeple, but recently, I'm beginning to think some Americans are beginning to think for a change. I'm ready for a third party! |
| Enheduanna | | (reply to Matty) posted 5-Sep-2008 11:15am |
And I believe I answered the question with my first sentence! |
| Matty |
I know that; this wasn't meant as an ad hominum attack by any means. Please don't take it that way.
But you specifically asked me "what in the world" would make me think I could draw a comparison between Pelosi and Palin, so I explained. I believe I also agreed, in part, with your point. That's all I meant. |
| Galomorro | | posted 5-Sep-2008 12:35pm |
No topic should be off-limits in a presidential election. It's up to the people listening to have the good common sense and intelligence to filter out in their own minds what's important and what makes no difference. If you run for office, you're going to have lots of people digging into your background to get some "dirt" on you. |
| moviesnob |
Yes - I don't think you should be bringing in the underage pregnant teenage daughters. |
| Enheduanna | | (reply to Matty) posted 5-Sep-2008 1:43pm |
Fair enough. |
| cloudhugger | | (reply to bill) posted 5-Sep-2008 2:01pm |
See-men? |
| Otter |
I think personal lives should be left out. Leave the families out of the mud slinging. |
| Frostbrand |
Well, yes, unless the canddiate "opens the door" to paraphrase Perry Mason. There are things about the candidates that should be left alone unless the cnadidate brings it up themselves. McCain's time as a POW for example. He (and his surrogates) bring it up almost as many times as Giuliani brought up 9/11 (a verb, a noun, and...), so he has no right to complain when Wesley Clark goes on TV and says something that is absolutely true; crashing your plane does not count as a qualification to be Commander in Chief. |
| Frostbrand | | (reply to dab) posted 5-Sep-2008 3:27pm |
> I think that attacking a candidate's under-age
> (even college age) children is off-limits. Chelsea
> was mostly left alone, as were the Bush twins.
> Any candidate who failed to respect that boundary
> would be unlikely to get my vote.
Chelsea left alone? Dude, were you listening to radio at all during the 90s? The Right Wing was so vicious towards her for no good reason. She was verbaly abused more often than Harris and Klebold. Good thing she had better parents. |
| Frostbrand | | (reply to LJD) posted 5-Sep-2008 3:29pm |
> Children are off limits.
>
> I believe anyone that is leading the country
> SHOULD be of HIGH MORAL FIBER.
>
> Obama may have been cleared of terrorist ties,
> but he is still a Muslim, through and through.
OK, we've had this conversation before. Repeating a lie doesn't make it true. i'm pretty sure your Bible doens't look kindly on liars.
> And if any American believes a Muslim should
> be leading this great nation, they are more worse
> off than I thought. Americans have become sheeple,
> but recently, I'm beginning to think some Americans
> are beginning to think for a change. I'm ready
> for a third party!
Yes, please. Vote for Bob barr, especially if you live in Georgia.  |
| dab |
I guess I missed it; I wasn't so into the talk radio as you. I remember hearing a couple snide remarks which I thought were just mean and certainly uncalled for but mostly I thought she was left alone by the press.
And through the day, as I've thought about my first comment, I've realized that I didn't really say what I think. What I think is that the press should not hound the kids of candidates. There shouldn't be photographers and reporters following them around day to day. |
| Frostbrand | | (reply to dab) posted 5-Sep-2008 4:13pm |
> And through the day, as I've thought about my
> first comment, I've realized that I didn't really
> say what I think. What I think is that the press
> should not hound the kids of candidates. There
> shouldn't be photographers and reporters following
> them around day to day.
You'll get no argument from me on that. |
| Crayons |
I don't think they should talk about religion so much. Apparently anyone who is non-christian has no chance of being president. It's not the point. I'm not saying Obama is Muslim, because he's not. But it's just that a majority of people are really closed minded in this area. It should not be an issue unless the candidate is a polygamist who rapes, beats, and eats his wives or something. |
| llamamama |
Yes..stuff that has absolutely nothing to do with politics.
How come Palin can't be VP because she has 5 kids? On the flip side, how can Obama be president, he has two kids?
Totally lame debate. |
| HMC35 |
At this point, Obama's background seems like a petty argument. His last name is African, I believe, not Muslim. All of the chain letter e-mails we were sent (and unfortunately are still being sent) seem sillier everyday. On the other hand, Palin's children is an issue I would like to see brought up. It's not like she's been battling this argument as long as Obama has been battling his. She should have the right to debate her opinion, and we should have the right to know what she thinks about that issue. Just like with Obama - again, the only difference is that Palin hasn't been officially nominated for VP long enough for anyone to know how she feels about these (personal) things. As for her speech, I found little depth within it to support any claims against her. Like Biden said, what do you talk about when you have nothing to say? (Paraphrasing).
So anyway, yeah. I want to hear what Palin has to say, and I 've already heard what Obama has to say. It's that simple. |
| LJD |
I'm very disappointed in both the Democrat and Republican parties...they're one in the same. I am hoping the Constitutional Republicans can take back the party from the RINOS. We need someone that will respect the foundation upon which this country was found.
I've heard of Bob Barr, from what I've read he's on the mark. I'll look more into it. I want to vote for someone that follows the Constitution. I've heard alot about the Libertarian party...I don't know. I want a Constitutional Party.
|
| kcthedog | | posted 5-Sep-2008 10:47pm |
Matty?
I abstain....I dislike politics. |
| icurok | | posted 6-Sep-2008 12:40am |
Maybe I've missed something, but I haven't heard anyone call in to question Sarah Palin's suitability for the job using her 5 children as justification. What I have been hearing is that a socially conservative politician who publicly advocates abstinence only programs in schools but then allows her 17 year old unmarried daughter to get knocked up can't claim that it's a private matter. |
| jettles |
actually i think family questions are off limits or family criticism is off limits. although issues concerning families of the US are not off limits and should be asked about without making them personal. i do think the mccain/palen are playing both sides of this- she is putting her family very much more in the limelight than anyone ever has because that is what they think is part of her appeal and then want no one to comment on that fact. |
| jettles | | (reply to dab) posted 6-Sep-2008 8:20am |
> I think that attacking a candidate's under-age (even college age)
> children is off-limits. Chelsea was mostly left alone, as were the
> Bush twins. Any candidate who failed to respect that boundary would
> be unlikely to get my vote.
really that is not true in either case- the bush twins were in the news concerning drinking(and maybe that was over 18) in college and partying. and chelsea clintion was picked on by many in the media, in much the same way as amy carter, with the media saying "how ugly she was"- which is horrible.
and might i add that mccain who is now saying that palin's children should be left alone did a despicable thing when chelsea was 17! http://www.crooksandliars.com/2008/02/09/john-mcca... this has been in the media for years and this was after(not that adults should need to be told) the clintons had asked numerous times to leave chelsea out that she was off limits. he is a disgusting little man who has no scruples!!
as i said in my comment, they want it both ways.
|
| dab | | (reply to jettles) posted 6-Sep-2008 8:23am |
Yup. That comment of McCain's is way over the line. |
| jettles |
> Chelsea left alone? Dude, were you listening to radio at all during
> the 90s? The Right Wing was so vicious towards her for no good reason.
> She was verbaly abused more often than Harris and Klebold. Good thing
> she had better parents.
i added a website below with the "ugly" comment by mccain about chelsea............ mccain is wanting to play both sides of this when he is as guilty as anyone and worse actually. but then maybe he just doesn't remember....................... |
| icurok | | (reply to jettles) posted 6-Sep-2008 11:47am |
I don't usually watch The Daily Show, but I thought this was sublime. |
| jettles | | (reply to icurok) posted 6-Sep-2008 11:49am |
> I don't usually watch The Daily Show, but I thought this
> was sublime.
i watched that a little while ago and yes it is................. it's really something how they can take both sides of an issue and think that people will buy all this crap!! but the frightening part is that people DO believe it!
|
| Frostbrand | | (reply to jettles) posted 6-Sep-2008 2:37pm |
Probably. McCain and the GOP have no shame. After all, his acceptance speech the other day started at 9:11 PM. And it was scheduled that way. |
gambler  |
One could argue that when you put yourself up for the highest public office, you should expect this.......... |
LindaH  | | posted 7-Sep-2008 12:14pm |
Off limits, maybe. Irrelevant, absolutely. |
| romkey | | posted 8-Sep-2008 12:16am |
Politics in the US are morally bankrupt?? Someone call the press!! |
| Matty | | (reply to romkey) posted 8-Sep-2008 8:56am |
Why have the blind lead the blind?  |
| romkey | | (reply to Matty) posted 8-Sep-2008 9:14am |
|
| they |
You know what really annoys me about this lady? She parades her children out on the stage of America and uses them like tools to further her campaign - and then they cry off limits.
I want to know who cares for these children?
Judging by the latest propaganda, I'd say they care for each other. A few days ago, Youtube was flooded with tons of videos of Sarah Palin's little girl licking her hand and wiping it on the baby's hair ("fixing it") while her mother gave a speech. It was kind of cute. My opinion is that the Republicans were jumping for joy that she did that because they can use it. It's disgusting. It's scary to me that people will vote based on ignorant things like baby licking children and US Weekly spreads.
A girl I work with told me that she voted for Bush the first time simply because her brother told her he had "good family values". So why wouldn't people vote based on who got on the cover of People magazine surrounded by children that probably barely know her? |
