To the poster of the blog article: you are mischaracterizing the purpose of Sullivan’s post. You make it sound by your inflammatory title that Sullivan went on a tirade about how Palin should just stay home and be a good mother rather than run for public office. On the contrary, Sullivan posted this opinion of a 37 year old Catholic mother to give one example where McCain’s strategy of scooping up the vote of fanatical Hillary supporters has failed. Or are you denying that a large part of the reason Palin was chosen as his running mate was to secure these votes, as some of his recent campaign ads and some recent speeches have indicated?

You set yourself up by vocation or avocation as debunking junk science. And you call me out for coherence while at the same time you support someone who wants my kid to study “Creationism” in our public school.

…and who would that be? Would it be Sarah Palin, who “if elected [as governor], would not push the State Board of Education to add such creation-based alternatives to the state’s required curriculum”?

http://dwb.adn.com/news/politics/elections/story/8347904p-8243554c.html

Obviously, she wants Creationism taught in school so badly that she’s paralyzed into inaction about actually, y’know, having it taught in school.

No problem.

You write:
Take away any anecdotal and personal touches and just look at the points made. There’s your first problem. There aren’t any points made.

Let me illustrate. You write:
Perhaps you think what I wrote is dishonest because you feel no one who has moved about in a world larger than this echo chamber would come to this place and post. Good point.
No. It’s not a good point. It’s an assertion based on a narcissistic view that you’ve “moved about in a world larger than this echo chamber”. Your attitude is strangely similar to a former commenter with the name of Levi, who imagined himself of superior intellect, and yet, was strangely unable to prove any superiority when challenged with an extremely basic task of simply remaining civil and putting forth an argument devoid of hyperbole and partisan talking points.

You go on:
I came here some time ago because a particular issue in which I was interested touched down here briefly in pertinent fashion. Since then, I have returned occasionally to check a particular pulse among many on the blogosphere, as well as to have occasional fun running a pipe across the cage’s bars to watch the animals react.
So you admit that your goal is simply the throwing of verbal firebombs, and not debate. You, like Levi, are here to ‘rattle cages’ and, also like Levi, believe yourself to be of higher intellect than the ‘animals’ at the site. This is easy to test, from your comments.

You write:
As for what I posted that you find to be unsubstantiated rumor etc…….
Boiling it down, I said:
There is a pincer movement at work concerning McCain’s choice of Palin.
Supposition on your part, but okay, let’s see where that goes.

Those pincers are:
One: Troopergate and whatever else like that comes out in the very near future now that real and serious scrutiny is underway. You can believe, if you wish, that McCain’s people carefully vetted her. I do not. Could be a major mistake.
Let me get this straight. What you label ‘Troopergate’ is an investigation into the firing of a senior level Police Captain for failing to suspend, discipline or terminate a patrol officer that you yourelf agree engaged in police brutality, unethical behavior and terrorist threats? Oh, as an aside, you do realize that the investigation was called for by Palin herself? To reiterate, you believe that the Governor or a State, having reported aggregious and unlawful behavior by a patrol officer to that officer’s superior, has absolutely no recorse to remove senior law enforcement management for failing to discipline that officer? Funny, that jibes poorly with your claim that my blood also boils when police/FBI et al. engage in pre-emptory strikes against all manner of people who may or may not have nefarious plans. So your blood boils, yet you want the highest elected official in the state to be powerless to alter such behavior.
Dishonest.

As for what ‘might happen in the future’, you can’t seriously think that constitutes a point?
Again, Dishonest.

You state that you don’t think McCain vetted Palin. Barring any evidence of this, it isn’t a point, it’s an opinion. The suggestions regarding your masculinity were also opinions, so you can weigh it’s value. The idea that stating an opinion equates to ’scoring a point’ is either stupid or dishonest. I’ll give you the benefit of the doubt.
Dishonest.

Two: The Republican backlash/blowback to McCain’s choice. You can accept or not accept that this choice went against the wishes of the Republican power structure. You can accept or not accept my assertion that the Republicans are pissed.
Yes, there are a lot of Republicans whose removal and/or indictment was caused directly by the actions of Palin, and yes, they’re pissed. Since you cite no sources to back up your assertion of an imminent torpedoing of Palin’s candidacy other than by Dishonest Leftists such as yourself, we’ll treat this as speculative. Accepting your ‘logic’, what would anger the RNC more, removal and replacement of corrupt Republicans by a Republican, or the loss of the Presidency due to intra-party squabbeling?

Your summary:
If you disagree with those being significant factors at this point, then we have nothing to discuss. For you or anyone else to dismiss it out of hand is either ignorant or dishonest.
They would be significant factors – if they existed. But you’ve supplied no specifics to back up your assertions. Again, you seem to have difficulty discerning between your assertions and objective evidence, which bodes poorly for your claim of higher intelligence.

Instead of labeling your suppositions as such, you dishonestly attempt to convert each into a ‘pincer’, implying that they indeed exist and are supported by some evidence other than opinion. You then take this dishonest conversion and attempt to create a false scenario whereby Palin’s candidacy is threatened. You further argue that anyone disagreeing that said scenario is ’significant’ must be stupid or dishonest. Again, Larry, I’ll give you the benefit of the doubt. You’re dishonest.

As to your being a Poser, lets examine that assertion.
A Poser is someone who attempts to pass themselves off as something that they are not, either because of a lack of capability or a lack of work.

As I explained earlier, your attitude and comments speak repeatedly to your superior intellect comparatively to myself and other commenters on this site. As this exceedingly long comment has proven, you do not possess that intellect, otherwise you would not be making the logical and factual errors previously outlined above.

Therefore, you, Larry, are a Poser, in addition to being dishonest. I regret calling you a girl’s name, as you are correct, it is an insult to women.

Perhaps we need to take a serious look at Intelligent Design?

All this BS had to come from somewhere other than a pool of muck; though, it seems we are Hell bent to return there.

as well as to have occasional fun running a pipe across the cage’s bars to watch the animals react
– Confession is good for the soul, is it not?

There is a pincer movement at work concerning McCain’s choice of Palin. Those pincers are:
One: Troopergate and whatever else like that comes out in the very near future now that real and serious scrutiny is underway. You can believe, if you wish, that McCain’s people carefully vetted her. I do not. Could be a major mistake. Two: The Republican backlash/blowback to McCain’s choice. You can accept or not accept that this choice went against the wishes of the Republican power structure. You can accept or not accept my assertion that the Republicans are pissed.
– How carefully does one need to vet a candidate in order to discover a story that has been out in the open, on local news and the internet for months?
Who is behind the the pincer movement to increase the scrutiny? Media Matters, perhaps?
The reason I do not accept your assertion is because you have provided zero, zip, nada in the way of evidence to prove it. Your assurance that it is happening doesn’t carry much weight, I’m afraid.

And for Icy Truth,
– He mentioned me! He mentioned me!

who apparently ventured into Wikipedia to learn about “pincer movement” this afternoon
– Actually, a very noble tree sacrificed itself to make the dictionary I use. Show some R-E-S-P-E-C-T, if you please.

the primary frontal assault is, by definition in an election campaign, being done by Obama/Biden. The two flank pincers may or may not be stoked by them or coordinated by them. This is not a wholly strategic maneuver in a design developed by all parties, but it is indeed a pincer movement by effect.
– See? I question whether or not the analogy fits; you explain how it does. We can work things out. And on that note: can you explain how Obama bin Biden are stoking or coordinating the Republican backlash?

And you call me out for coherence while at the same time you support someone who wants my kid to study “Creationism” in our public school.
– Remember, all four candidates believe in creationism.