[deepimpact2]

Originally Posted by KSig RC

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:



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.

1. She would still cover it up because she was still an elected official at the time who made her views clear on sex before marriage and abstinence.

2. She only had to produce parts of her records that showed she was fit to serve as VP (healthwise, which is something all candidates are expected to do) and to show she gave birth around the time Trig was born. Once you put yourself in the spotlight in politics, whenever any rumors come up that could potentially create a prblem, if you can stop the rumors by proving what is true, then you should do that. Obama did just that in making sure that his birth certificate information was released proving that he was indeed born in the US.

3. As far as why she covered it up the way she did, I don't know why she chose that manner. And who are you to say what would be an easier way? You don't know what would have been easiest for her. But the reason she chose to perhaps do it that way is of no importance. What matters is that there was a potential cover-up.

4. As far as whether Bristol missed four months of school, that was not one piece of information that I used in coming to a conclusion. I knew about it and I knew that the story that was promoted was that Bristol had mono.

5. As far as the rhetorical question of "why get pregnant at that stage in your political career?" That is something YOU brought up. I never said that, nor do I have that mindset. If you are going to accuse me of making false accusation, you would do well to heed your own advice. I think if you want to get pregnant at ANY stage in your career do you. Who cares?

The thing is, when it is all said and done you accuse ME of not providing facts, yet you haven't produced any yet. Nor does it seem like you have bothered to look.