Bristol Palin faces backlash over her $262,000 paycheck for work on teen pregnancy aw

**Fontan** · 04-08-2011, 09:50 AM

Originally posted by séamuis

but was for beter or worse a graduate of both harvard and yale, and persuaded an entire nation to vote him in as president twice.

A scary thought indeed. But not exactly the entire nation though. Those electoral voting system . . .

Parallax · 04-08-2011, 09:56 AM

Originally posted by Fontan

A scary thought indeed. But not exactly the entire nation though. Those electoral voting system . . .

He still got a whole lot higher percentage of the popular vote than Clinton did in either of his elections.

GeneV · 04-08-2011, 10:17 AM

Originally posted by Parallax

He still got a whole lot higher percentage of the popular vote than Clinton did in either of his elections.

Untrue compared to 1996. True in 1992, but irrelevant. Clinton won by 6% over GHW Bush. No one in that election received more votes than Clinton.

Nesster · 04-08-2011, 10:47 AM

But, let's look at Bristol's earnings a bit more? This is only a percentage of her total take for the year, I'm certain: there was dancing with the stars, and other celebrity things, that she's raking in on.
Bristol Palin Earnings Estimate, from Her Book Deal to Dancing With the Stars - The Daily Beast

But then her mom made $12 mill according to this
Capitalism at its Best: Palin’s Earnings Estimated at $12 Million– Far Cry from her $125k Job in Juneau Just Americans Making Ethical Statements Weblog

So, this shows that running on a national ticket, and playing to a currently fashionable political faction = cash in the bank. Not bad for a teen mom without a college education (talking about Bristol here)...

Meanwhile, dorm living is so plebian... Looks like maybe Bristol does want to go to college, with a staff to assist with the baby and her other appointments, no doubt:
Bristol Palin's College Decision -- Signs Point to Arizona State University Sun Devils | TMZ.com

another take:
http://blog.universitydecisions.com/bristol-palin-pursues-college-degree-arizona

But... what is reality? Seems like college education no longer need be reality based...
http://dailycaller.com/2010/12/28/independent-womens-forum-bristol-palin%E2%...for-teen-moms/

Quote:

Sarah Palin may have Alaska, but daughter Bristol Palin has dibs on Arizona.

With her recent purchase of a $172,000 foreclosed house in Maricopa, Ariz., many are saying that Bristol Palin is likely to become an Arizona State University Sun Devil next fall. TMZ reported this weekend that Palin has been telling friends she’s looking to enroll in broadcasting courses at Arizona State’s Walter Cronkite School of Journalism and Mass Communication.

Despite the buzz surrounding Palin’s scholarly endeavors, Chris Callahan, the dean of the Walter Cronkite School of Journalism says that Palin has no plans to matriculate at the university.

“She is not a student. She hasn’t applied. It is pure fiction,” Callahan said Tuesday, as reported by the Arizona Republic.

Last edited by Nesster; 04-08-2011 at 10:52 AM.

Parallax · 04-08-2011, 10:52 AM

Originally posted by GeneV

........... No one in that election received more votes than Clinton.

True. You are correct that in 1996 Clinton received a greater percentage of the votes tan W. received in 92; but of the two of them, only Bush can say he was ever elected by a majority of the voters.

Clinton (Percentage of popular votes cast)
1992 - 43
1996 - 49.2

Bush
2000 - 47
2004 - 50.7

Obama
2008 - 52.9

Bush won his first election by a greater percentage than Clinton won his, and he won his second election by a greater percentage than Clinton won his.

Obama won his election by a greater percentage than either of the other two ever got. What does this all mean?
To me it suggests that the electorate is getting increasingly more gullible as the years go by.

Wheatfield · 04-08-2011, 10:58 AM

Originally posted by Parallax

Obama won his election by a greater percentage than either of the other two ever got. What does this all mean?
To me it suggests that the electorate is getting increasingly more gullible as the years go by.

More likely they are learning from past mistakes....

GeneV · 04-08-2011, 10:59 AM

Originally posted by Parallax

True. You are correct that in 1996 Clinton received a greater percentage of the votes tan W. received in 92; but of the two of them, only Bush can say he was ever elected by a majority of the voters.

Clinton (Percentage of popular votes cast)
1992 - 43
1996 - 49.2

Bush
2000 - 47
2004 - 50.7

Obama
2008 - 52.9

Bush won his first election by a greater percentage than Clinton won his, and he won his second election by a greater percentage than Clinton won his.

Obama won his election by a greater percentage than either of the other two ever got. What does this all mean?
To me it suggests that the electorate is getting increasingly more gullible as the years go by.

Jim, you keep changing what you are saying. Actually, the way you are saying it now may be incorrect even for 1992. Clinton beat his nearest competitor in his first election by 6 points. Bush lost the popular vote to his nearest competitor. How can you say he "won his first election by a greater percentage?"

Parallax · 04-08-2011, 11:28 AM

Originally posted by GeneV

Jim, you keep changing what you are saying. Actually, the way you are saying it now may be incorrect even for 1992. Clinton beat his nearest competitor in his first election by 6 points. Bush lost the popular vote to his nearest competitor. How can you say he "won his first election by a greater percentage?"

It's easy; I worded it poorly. W got a greater percentage of the votes cast in his first election than Clinton got of votes cast in his first election.
In 1992 Clinton got 43% of the popular vote. In 2000 W. got 47.87% of the popular vote.
I'm no Fibonacci, but I'm pretty sure 47.87 is more than 43.

jogiba · 04-08-2011, 11:36 AM

Quote:

So, this shows that running on a national ticket, and playing to a currently fashionable political faction = cash in the bank. Not bad for a teen mom without a college education (talking about Bristol here)...

Are you inferring Sarah Palin has a college education .

Palin said there was a difference between the White House and what she had experienced in Alaska. If she were in the White House, she said, the "department of law" would protect her from baseless ethical allegations.

"I think on a national level, your department of law there in the White House would look at some of the things that we've been charged with and automatically throw them out," she said.

There is no "Department of Law" at the White House.

Nesster · 04-08-2011, 11:39 AM

Originally posted by jogiba

There is no "Department of Law" at the White House.

Well, that's only because there's no Sarah Palin in the White House!

and THAT is Obama's problem: he doesn't have a Dept of Law! If he had one, nobody would be calling him a muslim or non-native American or communist nazi!

GeneV · 04-08-2011, 11:59 AM

Originally posted by Parallax

It's easy; I worded it poorly. W got a greater percentage of the votes cast in his first election than Clinton got of votes cast in his first election.
In 1992 Clinton got 43% of the popular vote. In 2000 W. got 47.87% of the popular vote.
I'm no Fibonacci, but I'm pretty sure 47.87 is more than 43.

So what's the point? who should have won in 1992? The guy with 37%? Why is it even relevant to talk about how many votes Clinton got?"

When the other major candidate actually gets more votes than the one who gets the prize, the question is a little more difficult. Had Kerry gotten a few more votes in Ohio (that he may have even been entitled to) we would have had this go the other way, and with a much bigger difference between the popular vote and the electoral vote.

SteveM · 04-08-2011, 12:34 PM

Originally posted by Parallax

It's easy; I worded it poorly. W got a greater percentage of the votes cast in his first election than Clinton got of votes cast in his first election.
In 1992 Clinton got 43% of the popular vote. In 2000 W. got 47.87% of the popular vote.
I'm no Fibonacci, but I'm pretty sure 47.87 is more than 43.

Al Gore received 48.4% against Bush's 47.87%, but since Bush was a loser, he wins.

cardinal43 · 04-08-2011, 12:54 PM

Originally posted by Parallax

He still got a whole lot higher percentage of the popular vote than Clinton did in either of his elections.

What's your point? They were both elected twice, but only 1 of them lied the US into Iraq. Here's a hint, it wasn't Clinton.

Nesster · 04-08-2011, 01:50 PM

Originally posted by cardinal43

What's your point? They were both elected twice, but only 1 of them lied the US into Iraq. Here's a hint, it wasn't Clinton.

But the other played with cigars and lied about it. That's far worse.

Parallax · 04-08-2011, 01:56 PM

Originally posted by GeneV

So what's the point? .............

Originally posted by cardinal43

What's your point? .................

Who said there was a point?

It was all in response to Fontan's equally pointless comment "You mean that deer in the headlight guy who could not speak in full sentences? "

BTW, Tom, only one of them was impeached for perjury and obstruction of justice.
(Hint: It wasn't GWB)

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
People Another one of pregnancy	Camos1313	Photo Critique	4	01-27-2011 07:22 PM
People Pregnancy	Camos1313	Post Your Photos!	3	01-15-2011 01:36 PM
Teen motorcycle racer killed at Indy	jogiba	General Talk	25	09-06-2010 10:13 AM
Facebook Status Update Clears Teen From Criminal Charges	Gooshin	General Talk	20	11-18-2009 07:06 AM

04-08-2011, 09:50 AM	#31
Fontan Site Supporter Join Date: Jan 2011 Location: 5th floor Posts: 1,610	Originally posted by séamuis but was for beter or worse a graduate of both harvard and yale, and persuaded an entire nation to vote him in as president *twice*. A scary thought indeed. But not exactly the entire nation though. Those electoral voting system . . .

04-08-2011, 09:56 AM	#32
Parallax Senior Moderator Loyal Site Supporter Join Date: Apr 2008 Location: South Dakota Photos: Gallery Posts: 19,332	Originally posted by Fontan A scary thought indeed. But not exactly the entire nation though. Those electoral voting system . . . He still got a whole lot higher percentage of the popular vote than Clinton did in either of his elections.

04-08-2011, 10:17 AM	#33
GeneV Veteran Member Join Date: Oct 2008 Location: Albuquerque NM Photos: Albums Posts: 9,830	Originally posted by Parallax He still got a whole lot higher percentage of the popular vote than Clinton did in either of his elections. Untrue compared to 1996. True in 1992, but irrelevant. Clinton won by 6% over GHW Bush. No one in that election received more votes than Clinton.

04-08-2011, 10:47 AM	#34
Nesster Veteran Member Join Date: Oct 2006 Location: NJ USA Photos: Gallery Posts: 13,072	But, let's look at Bristol's earnings a bit more? This is only a percentage of her total take for the year, I'm certain: there was dancing with the stars, and other celebrity things, that she's raking in on. Bristol Palin Earnings Estimate, from Her Book Deal to Dancing With the Stars - The Daily Beast But then her mom made $12 mill according to this Capitalism at its Best: Palin’s Earnings Estimated at $12 Million– Far Cry from her $125k Job in Juneau Just Americans Making Ethical Statements Weblog So, this shows that running on a national ticket, and playing to a currently fashionable political faction = cash in the bank. Not bad for a teen mom without a college education (talking about Bristol here)... Meanwhile, dorm living is so plebian... Looks like maybe Bristol does want to go to college, with a staff to assist with the baby and her other appointments, no doubt: Bristol Palin's College Decision -- Signs Point to Arizona State University Sun Devils \| TMZ.com another take: http://blog.universitydecisions.com/bristol-palin-pursues-college-degree-arizona But... what is reality? Seems like college education no longer need be reality based... http://dailycaller.com/2010/12/28/independent-womens-forum-bristol-palin%E2%...for-teen-moms/ Quote: Sarah Palin may have Alaska, but daughter Bristol Palin has dibs on Arizona. With her recent purchase of a $172,000 foreclosed house in Maricopa, Ariz., many are saying that Bristol Palin is likely to become an Arizona State University Sun Devil next fall. TMZ reported this weekend that Palin has been telling friends she’s looking to enroll in broadcasting courses at Arizona State’s Walter Cronkite School of Journalism and Mass Communication. Despite the buzz surrounding Palin’s scholarly endeavors, Chris Callahan, the dean of the Walter Cronkite School of Journalism says that Palin has no plans to matriculate at the university. “She is not a student. She hasn’t applied. It is pure fiction,” Callahan said Tuesday, as reported by the Arizona Republic. Last edited by Nesster; 04-08-2011 at 10:52 AM.

04-08-2011, 10:52 AM	#35
Parallax Senior Moderator Loyal Site Supporter Join Date: Apr 2008 Location: South Dakota Photos: Gallery Posts: 19,332	Originally posted by GeneV ........... No one in that election received more votes than Clinton. True. You are correct that in 1996 Clinton received a greater percentage of the votes tan W. received in 92; but of the two of them, only Bush can say he was ever elected by a majority of the voters. Clinton (Percentage of popular votes cast) 1992 - 43 1996 - 49.2 Bush 2000 - 47 2004 - 50.7 Obama 2008 - 52.9 Bush won his first election by a greater percentage than Clinton won his, and he won his second election by a greater percentage than Clinton won his. Obama won his election by a greater percentage than either of the other two ever got. What does this all mean? To me it suggests that the electorate is getting increasingly more gullible as the years go by.

04-08-2011, 10:58 AM	#36
Wheatfield Moderator Join Date: Apr 2008 Location: The wheatfields of Canada Posts: 15,981	Originally posted by Parallax Obama won his election by a greater percentage than either of the other two ever got. What does this all mean? To me it suggests that the electorate is getting increasingly more gullible as the years go by. More likely they are learning from past mistakes....

04-08-2011, 10:59 AM	#37
GeneV Veteran Member Join Date: Oct 2008 Location: Albuquerque NM Photos: Albums Posts: 9,830	Originally posted by Parallax True. You are correct that in 1996 Clinton received a greater percentage of the votes tan W. received in 92; but of the two of them, only Bush can say he was ever elected by a majority of the voters. Clinton (Percentage of popular votes cast) 1992 - 43 1996 - 49.2 Bush 2000 - 47 2004 - 50.7 Obama 2008 - 52.9 Bush won his first election by a greater percentage than Clinton won his, and he won his second election by a greater percentage than Clinton won his. Obama won his election by a greater percentage than either of the other two ever got. What does this all mean? To me it suggests that the electorate is getting increasingly more gullible as the years go by. Jim, you keep changing what you are saying. Actually, the way you are saying it now may be incorrect even for 1992. Clinton beat his nearest competitor in his first election by 6 points. Bush lost the popular vote to his nearest competitor. How can you say he "won his first election by a greater percentage?"

04-08-2011, 11:28 AM	#38
Parallax Senior Moderator Loyal Site Supporter Join Date: Apr 2008 Location: South Dakota Photos: Gallery Posts: 19,332	Originally posted by GeneV Jim, you keep changing what you are saying. Actually, the way you are saying it now may be incorrect even for 1992. Clinton beat his nearest competitor in his first election by 6 points. Bush lost the popular vote to his nearest competitor. How can you say he "won his first election by a greater percentage?" It's easy; I worded it poorly. W got a greater percentage of the votes cast in his first election than Clinton got of votes cast in his first election. In 1992 Clinton got 43% of the popular vote. In 2000 W. got 47.87% of the popular vote. I'm no Fibonacci, but I'm pretty sure 47.87 is more than 43.

04-08-2011, 11:36 AM	#39
jogiba Banned Join Date: Sep 2006 Location: Millstone,NJ Posts: 6,491 Original Poster	Quote: So, this shows that running on a national ticket, and playing to a currently fashionable political faction = cash in the bank. Not bad for a teen mom without a college education (talking about Bristol here)... Are you inferring Sarah Palin has a college education . Palin said there was a difference between the White House and what she had experienced in Alaska. If she were in the White House, she said, the "department of law" would protect her from baseless ethical allegations. "I think on a national level, your department of law there in the White House would look at some of the things that we've been charged with and automatically throw them out," she said. There is no "Department of Law" at the White House.

04-08-2011, 11:39 AM	#40
Nesster Veteran Member Join Date: Oct 2006 Location: NJ USA Photos: Gallery Posts: 13,072	Originally posted by jogiba There is no "Department of Law" at the White House. Well, that's only because there's no Sarah Palin in the White House! and THAT is Obama's problem: he doesn't have a Dept of Law! If he had one, nobody would be calling him a muslim or non-native American or communist nazi!

04-08-2011, 11:59 AM	#41
GeneV Veteran Member Join Date: Oct 2008 Location: Albuquerque NM Photos: Albums Posts: 9,830	Originally posted by Parallax It's easy; I worded it poorly. W got a greater percentage of the votes cast in his first election than Clinton got of votes cast in his first election. In 1992 Clinton got 43% of the popular vote. In 2000 W. got 47.87% of the popular vote. I'm no Fibonacci, but I'm pretty sure 47.87 is more than 43. So what's the point? who should have won in 1992? The guy with 37%? Why is it even relevant to talk about how many votes Clinton got?" When the other major candidate actually gets more votes than the one who gets the prize, the question is a little more difficult. Had Kerry gotten a few more votes in Ohio (that he may have even been entitled to) we would have had this go the other way, and with a much bigger difference between the popular vote and the electoral vote.

04-08-2011, 12:34 PM	#42
SteveM Veteran Member Join Date: Jan 2009 Location: Vancouver Island, BC, Canada Photos: Gallery Posts: 3,294	Originally posted by Parallax It's easy; I worded it poorly. W got a greater percentage of the votes cast in his first election than Clinton got of votes cast in his first election. In 1992 Clinton got 43% of the popular vote. In 2000 W. got 47.87% of the popular vote. I'm no Fibonacci, but I'm pretty sure 47.87 is more than 43. Al Gore received 48.4% against Bush's 47.87%, but since Bush was a loser, he wins.

04-08-2011, 12:54 PM	#43
cardinal43 Veteran Member Join Date: Oct 2007 Location: Virginia Photos: Gallery Posts: 2,412	Originally posted by Parallax He still got a whole lot higher percentage of the popular vote than Clinton did in either of his elections. What's your point? They were both elected twice, but only 1 of them lied the US into Iraq. Here's a hint, it wasn't Clinton.

04-08-2011, 01:50 PM	#44
Nesster Veteran Member Join Date: Oct 2006 Location: NJ USA Photos: Gallery Posts: 13,072	Originally posted by cardinal43 What's your point? They were both elected twice, but only 1 of them lied the US into Iraq. Here's a hint, it wasn't Clinton. But the other played with cigars and lied about it. That's far worse.

04-08-2011, 01:56 PM	#45
Parallax Senior Moderator Loyal Site Supporter Join Date: Apr 2008 Location: South Dakota Photos: Gallery Posts: 19,332	Originally posted by GeneV So what's the point? ............. Originally posted by cardinal43 What's your point? ................. Who said there was a point? It was all in response to Fontan's equally pointless comment "You mean that deer in the headlight guy who could not speak in full sentences? " BTW, Tom, only one of them was impeached for perjury and obstruction of justice. (Hint: It wasn't GWB)