Mother of Palin's boyfriend arrest

[KSig RC]

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:

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.

[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.

[epchick]

Originally Posted by deepimpact2

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.

No one, not even Sarah Palin, has to provide you any facts to prove that it is true or not. We've already had this discussion when the issue first came up, maybe do a GC search. You'll see that there is "proof" that Sarah WAS pregnant, and that Bristol is CURRENTLY pregnant.

[deepimpact2]

Originally Posted by epchick

No one, not even Sarah Palin, has to provide you any facts to prove that it is true or not. We've already had this discussion when the issue first came up, maybe do a GC search. You'll see that there is "proof" that Sarah WAS pregnant, and that Bristol is CURRENTLY pregnant.

She didn't just need to prove it to me, but to the rest of the public that she was potentially lying to.




It's my opinion that she made things too rigid for herself and her family and it came back to bite her in the butt. Had she not been so self-righteous and unforgiving in her views, the situation would not have been as sticky.

[Kevin]

Originally Posted by deepimpact2

, the situation would not have been as sticky.

This is a [probably] unintentional, but wonderful choice of words.

But still.

Occam's Razor.

When was the last time one of these 'vast' conspiracies worked out the theorists believed it had worked out? For obvious reasons, (see KSig RC above) the vast conspiracy theory just doesn't wash.

No need to try and jam square pegs into round holes. Palin doesn't owe anyone an explanation because nothing happened.

[SWTXBelle]

Well, if you want to rumourmonger, do it right!

http://www.snopes.com/politics/palin/bristolbaby.asp

[deepimpact2]

Originally Posted by SWTXBelle

http://www.snopes.com/politics/palin/bristolbaby.asp

I'm gonna have to send that to some of my friends. Hilarious!

[deepimpact2]

Originally Posted by Kevin

This is a [probably] unintentional, but wonderful choice of words.

But still.

Occam's Razor.

When was the last time one of these 'vast' conspiracies worked out the theorists believed it had worked out? For obvious reasons, (see KSig RC above) the vast conspiracy theory just doesn't wash.

No need to try and jam square pegs into round holes. Palin doesn't owe anyone an explanation because nothing happened.

I'm well aware that there are some people who see a conspiracy in everything. However, it is important to remember that just because someone suggests there IS a conspiracy in a situation, you shouldn't automatically discount it as a crazy conspiracy theory with no support. That's just as bad in my opinion.