Quote:
Originally Posted by deepimpact2
Actually if there is nothing to hide, then why not produce the records? As much as Palin talks about honesty and integrity, seems like she would be open to that as well. And besides, as I stated previously there has been no release of RECORDS. You specifically referred to RECORDS and those carry FAR more weight than a mere letter from a doctor. By the time the doctor wrote this letter, they could have just produced the records. The end.
|
OK - but wait, unfortunately for you, there's more to it than this!
Why should she have to prove her daughter was hers? Maybe Ms. Palin has AIDS or Hep C, and doesn't want that part of her record public (she can't exactly redact parts, or you'll still be dissatisfied, right?). Maybe it was a non-standard birth and she took drugs. Maybe the records aren't easy to find, or reveal something else private. All of these are incredibly good reasons to protect your own privacy - ones the US Government and SCOTUS both feel are well worth securing.
Let's see why you think she should:
Quote:
Originally Posted by deepimpact2
You can go on all day about how what I'm saying is not true and whatnot. That still doesn't mean anything. There is far more evidence on MY side than on yours at this point. You apparently want to keep your head in the sand. And the burden of proof is on YOU to use your Internet the same way that everyone else does. That way you can find your own sources because if I povide you with sources, the next thing that you will say is that my sources are biased.
|
Here's the deal. You are promoting that something is false (in this case, "Trig Palin is Sarah Palin's son"). You are asserting that there are facts to back this up. I am asking for them; you are not providing them.
So her daughter missed 4 months of school during a time frame that may or may not coincide with part of the pregnancy, depending on who you believe? Inconclusive, but by far your best evidence. Some 'friends' (unnamed, as far as I've seen) claim they didn't know Palin was pregnant until the shower? Uh, OK, there's this whole "job" thing that may just have taken up more time, who knows? Not close to conclusive. Additionally, this is counteracted by her public appearances.
The rhetorical device, "why get pregnant at that stage in your political career?" Specious at best, intentionally misleading at worst. This is a religious woman who is anywhere from slightly to wildly against birth control and abortion. Accidents happen. It's no more or less likely that Palin had the accident than Bristol having it . . . twice . . . in a row. As such, there's no reason to deviate from the stated story - there's just no solid evidence, just assertion or innuendo that requires you to make a judgment about Ms. Palin's
personality and motivation rather than
actual facts!
Things you haven't accounted for:
-Why cover it up? She had no knowledge she was a VP candidate until just before the actual selection, and thus the Trig issue would have required a massive cover-up for reasons unrelated to her VP run . . . that's a lot of foresight for someone most don't think is all that smart.
-Why cover it up in the
specific fashion she did (i.e. appearing as pregnant in public)? There are easier ways that you must discount first.
-Again, read up on Occam's Razor. Why take the leap?
OK - see, here's the difference between what I'm actually saying and what you're reading . . . while I would be surprised if this was indeed some massive conspiracy, I'm not completely closed to it. I simply have not seen any evidence that this is the case, and until then, I'll go with the simplest solution as the most likely. If you can provide any evidence, I'll look at it objectively and decide on its own merits.
Can you say the same? Remember, again: absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. We can take it one logical fallacy at the time, if you'd like.