Page 40 of 75 FirstFirst ... 3036373839404142434450 ... LastLast
Results 586 to 600 of 1114
Like Tree1Likes

Thread: *Rumors and Speculation* Did Sarah Palin fake her last pregnancy?

  1. #586
    Elite Member B.C.'s Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Motor City
    Posts
    2,275

    Default

    Why would Palin not inform her own parents that she was pregnant with child #5 until days before she made her public announcement? Why were members of Palin's staff "shocked" when she announced her pregnancy at 7 months in March? C'mon! Anytime any of my female coworkers of birthing age called in sick because they were nauseated, the joking would begin that maybe she was pregnant. Palin announced she was preganant toward the latter half of the legislative session in Alaska in Juneau. Her own staff would not have been shocked at the announcement if she had regular prenatal appointments; something that a woman at 44 years of age would definitely be having since she is a high-risk pregnancy.
    Seeing what an attention whore she is I can't imagine her keeping her mouth shut about being pregnant. For people like Palin, the more attention the better. Why wait until 7 months to make the announcement.

  2. #587
    Elite Member MohandasKGanja's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Wherever my kids are
    Posts
    33,259

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Fluffy View Post
    Yeah, but is Bristol even close to 36 weeks?

    Since Palin didn't release her medical records, there is no "hardcore evidence." No one can release Bristol or Palin's medical records without authorization. Anyone who did would face a lawsuit and any doctor who spoke about either's medical records would lose their license. Same for any nurse or medical technician. They would never be able to work in their profession again since they cannot keep their patients' medical history private/confidential. Same reason no doctor in Alaska has gone on record as saying, "I was at the birth of Trig Palin. His biological mother is Sarah Palin."

    There's a shitload of circumstantial evidence to support Bristol being the mother, not Sarah. If there was only one piece instead of the whole stack, then I'd say this is far fetched. Except the all of the evidence, no matter how circumstantial, outweighs the lack of verification that Sarah Palin has released to back up her claim that Trig is her child.

    "Why would Palin schedule a photo op? Is she obligated to do that?" Was Palin obligated to tell a local TV anchor that the rumors saying Bristol were pregnant this spring were false and then tell him that she was pregnant before she made her public announcement?
    Why would Palin not inform her own parents that she was pregnant with child #5 until days before she made her public announcement? Why were members of Palin's staff "shocked" when she announced her pregnancy at 7 months in March? C'mon! Anytime any of my female coworkers of birthing age called in sick because they were nauseated, the joking would begin that maybe she was pregnant. Palin announced she was preganant toward the latter half of the legislative session in Alaska in Juneau. Her own staff would not have been shocked at the announcement if she had regular prenatal appointments; something that a woman at 44 years of age would definitely be having since she is a high-risk pregnancy.
    Once again, Fluffy, you have no hard-core evidence, none at all, for your contentions. A doctor wouldn't have to give Palin up. A technician wouldn't have to give her up. An orderly wouldn't have to give her up. Anybody who knew the slightest bit about "Bristol being pregnant instead of Sarah" could. Anybody tangentially related to the event could. Just like what happened with Christina Applegate.

    The Enquirer could even make up something with an "unnamed source", like they did with the rumor about the affair, but they don't dare. Hmmm, I wonder why? Here's the answer -- because they have NOTHING.

  3. #588
    Elite Member MohandasKGanja's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Wherever my kids are
    Posts
    33,259

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by A*O View Post
    Not necessarily. DS is mainly causes intellectual impairment to a greater or lesser extent along with a few physical characteristics (large tongue, slanted eyes) we are all familiar with. There's no real reason why these babies need any more special care than any others.

    It's true this is all speculation and circumstantial evidence but there's an awful lot more of it that makes sense than the mysterious absence of ANY documentary or verifiable evidence whatsoever.

    Wouldn't you think that if Sarah Palin is indeed Trig's mother she would be happy to provide the necessary proof to stop the speculation and rumours which can only be damaging to her long term ambitions.
    Who's to say there is no documentary evidence? Members of my family have had numerous medical procedures and there is plenty of documentary evidence, but HIPPA prevents release of it. Theoretically, none of it should be available. Unless the person decides to specifically release the information. As far as why Palin wouldn't try to clear it up -- it's not exactly part of the mainstream media's reporting. I can't remember a single instance of the media -- including Couric and Gibson -- asking her about it.

  4. #589
    Elite Member Serendipity's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    Round the bend
    Posts
    2,158

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by MohandasKGanja View Post
    Once again, Fluffy, you have no hard-core evidence, none at all, for your contentions. A doctor wouldn't have to give Palin up. A technician wouldn't have to give her up. An orderly wouldn't have to give her up. Anybody who knew the slightest bit about "Bristol being pregnant instead of Sarah" could. Anybody tangentially related to the event could. Just like what happened with Christina Applegate.

    The Enquirer could even make up something with an "unnamed source", like they did with the rumor about the affair, but they don't dare. Hmmm, I wonder why? Here's the answer -- because they have NOTHING.
    But no one is talking either way. No one is proving Bristol gave birth. No one is proving Sarah gave birth. We only have circumstantial information which really only points to Bristol being the mother. I think that's why what Fluffy is saying makes the most sense to me.

    Just makes me wonder why no one is saying either way given what you said about Christina's medical information being spilled.
    It's like you ate too much crazy then puked it all over a post and hit submit - Nancydrew

  5. #590
    Elite Member Folieadeux's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Posts
    3,230

    Default

    Yeah, but while I keep reading that there's no "hardcore" evidence, there is no "hardcore" evidence that Sarah is Trigg's mother, given the amount of small facts and such that we do know, I'm inclined to believe Sarah isn't Trigg's mother.
    ssabmud

  6. #591
    Elite Member Fluffy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Posts
    5,600

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by MohandasKGanja View Post
    Once again, Fluffy, you have no hard-core evidence, none at all, for your contentions. A doctor wouldn't have to give Palin up. A technician wouldn't have to give her up. An orderly wouldn't have to give her up. Anybody who knew the slightest bit about "Bristol being pregnant instead of Sarah" could. Anybody tangentially related to the event could. Just like what happened with Christina Applegate.

    The Enquirer could even make up something with an "unnamed source", like they did with the rumor about the affair, but they don't dare. Hmmm, I wonder why? Here's the answer -- because they have NOTHING.
    And yet, you have no evidence to prove that Sarah Palin is the mother.

    This isn't Los Angeles where Christina Applegate lives, this small-town Alaska. Their access to the gossip wires is a little bit different from those in Hell-Ay. And who's to say that they haven't squealed to someone? MohandasKGanja, you cannot say for a fact that the National Enquirer is not working on this story right now. Just because they haven't published an expose, doesn't mean they aren't working on one. Because the best time for them to publish one will be after Bristol doesn't meet her previously publicly announced due date of Dec 18th.
    Quote Originally Posted by MohandasKGanja View Post
    Who's to say there is no documentary evidence? Members of my family have had numerous medical procedures and there is plenty of documentary evidence, but HIPPA prevents release of it. Theoretically, none of it should be available. Unless the person decides to specifically release the information.
    And this is why speculation still swirls around Trig Palin's parentage! Palin has released nothing--NOTHING--to qwell the rumors. Not even a doctor has spoken on the record to confirm that Trig is Sarah Palin's son.
    Quote Originally Posted by MohandasKGanja View Post
    As far as why Palin wouldn't try to clear it up -- it's not exactly part of the mainstream media's reporting. I can't remember a single instance of the media -- including Couric and Gibson -- asking her about it.
    Well, gee, Palin gave so many interview and press conference opportunities right after she was nominated! The McCain campaign announced Bristol was 5 months pregnant as their way of dismissing the rumors after the VP announcement, while keeping their own involvement minimal. Which means once Bristol doesn't keep within the timeframe that was previously publicly announced, the mainstream media will have better grounds to do stories on this and I have no doubt those stories are going to happen. Because, I just checked with a reliable person, the word on the street in Anchorage is that Bristol is "seven months" and that her due date is most likely mid-February. That's NOWHERE NEAR a Dec 18th due date and Palin's lie will be on the national news come February. (Ironically, Palin's birthday is February 11th.)

  7. #592
    Elite Member MohandasKGanja's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Wherever my kids are
    Posts
    33,259

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Fluffy View Post
    And yet, you have no evidence to prove that Sarah Palin is the mother.

    This isn't Los Angeles where Christina Applegate lives, this small-town Alaska. Their access to the gossip wires is a little bit different from those in Hell-Ay. And who's to say that they haven't squealed to someone? MohandasKGanja, you cannot say for a fact that the National Enquirer is not working on this story right now. Just because they haven't published an expose, doesn't mean they aren't working on one. Because the best time for them to publish one will be after Bristol doesn't meet her previously publicly announced due date of Dec 18th.
    And this is why speculation still swirls around Trig Palin's parentage! Palin has released nothing--NOTHING--to qwell the rumors. Not even a doctor has spoken on the record to confirm that Trig is Sarah Palin's son. Well, gee, Palin gave so many interview and press conference opportunities right after she was nominated! The McCain campaign announced Bristol was 5 months pregnant as their way of dismissing the rumors after the VP announcement, while keeping their own involvement minimal. Which means once Bristol doesn't keep within the timeframe that was previously publicly announced, the mainstream media will have better grounds to do stories on this and I have no doubt those stories are going to happen. Because, I just checked with a reliable person, the word on the street in Anchorage is that Bristol is "seven months" and that her due date is most likely mid-February. That's NOWHERE NEAR a Dec 18th due date and Palin's lie will be on the national news come February. (Ironically, Palin's birthday is February 11th.)
    Fluffy, Sarah Palin isn't obligated to prove that she is the mother of Trig. It's pretty much an accepted fact throughout the mainstream media. No big expose's by ABC, MSNBC, Enquirer, or any other major media outlet.

    Once again, no unnamed sources of any kind to provide backup for the contentions. You don't have to live in Hollywood to have information about you spilled - medical information about people gets spilled all the time and everywhere. Anyone either looking to make a buck, or settle a score, could do it -- small town or big town. But that hasn't happened at all with Palin. Hundreds of reporters desceneded on Alaska during the general election campaign to find out more about Palin. Nobody came back with a story about how Bristol was really the mother of Trig.

    Clearly, someone could do let crucial evidence out if they wanted to. Palin was already accused of misusing her authority in her little town, and it went to some kind of Government committee to be determined. No one is afraid of Palin.

    The reason that Sarah Palin doesn't have to prove she is the mom is because the onus is on whoever doesn't believe her to actually prove what is a pretty outlandish contention. If she isn't the mom, there would be numerous smoking guns - medical records, a wide variety of witnesses. But there is no smoking gun.

  8. #593
    Elite Member Little Wombat's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Posts
    1,616

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by MohandasKGanja View Post
    Once again, no unnamed sources of any kind to provide backup for the contentions. You don't have to live in Hollywood to have information about you spilled - medical information about people gets spilled all the time and everywhere. Anyone either looking to make a buck, or settle a score, could do it -- small town or big town. But that hasn't happened at all with Palin. Hundreds of reporters desceneded on Alaska during the general election campaign to find out more about Palin. Nobody came back with a story about how Bristol was really the mother of Trig.
    You're making a lot of assumptions about people's behavior. You're assuming anyone and everyone would sell any unflattering or gossipy information about someone just to make a buck. Not everyone in the world is like that.

    Besides, if you've seen the video of Sarah Palin walking around Juneau on the urban hiking podcast or the video of her interview in early March where she leans very far forward, it's obvious that that this woman was not physically pregnant - and third trimester at that! Simple laws of human physiology.

    If Bristol does not birth her [second] child in 2008, it will negate any statements that she couldn't have been Trig's mother. I can only hope that this becomes a story in the media for sh*ts and giggles. I mean, seriously! Barack Obama had to publicize his birth certificate to prove that he was actually born in the United States. Will Sarah Palin release Trig's birth certificate to quell speculation and rumors? Doubt it.

  9. #594
    Friend of Gossip Rocks! buttmunch's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Uranus
    Posts
    31,884

    Default

    I would probably just laugh at the rumours if she hadn't flown back to Alaska after her water broke. That's just too damned odd to not raise a few questions and demand a few answers.
    'Those who sacrifice liberty for security deserve neither.' Ben Franklin

    "When fascism comes to America, it will be wrapped in the flag and carrying the cross."
    --Sinclair Lewis

  10. #595
    Gold Member ymeman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    1,415

    Default

    yep, not only that but past two hospitals that were state of the art facilities, back to podunk Alaska and that creepy doctor that she appoints to everything that isn't nailed down. The whole thing is creepy.

  11. #596
    Elite Member MohandasKGanja's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Wherever my kids are
    Posts
    33,259

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Little Wombat View Post
    You're making a lot of assumptions about people's behavior. You're assuming anyone and everyone would sell any unflattering or gossipy information about someone just to make a buck. Not everyone in the world is like that.

    Besides, if you've seen the video of Sarah Palin walking around Juneau on the urban hiking podcast or the video of her interview in early March where she leans very far forward, it's obvious that that this woman was not physically pregnant - and third trimester at that! Simple laws of human physiology.

    If Bristol does not birth her [second] child in 2008, it will negate any statements that she couldn't have been Trig's mother. I can only hope that this becomes a story in the media for sh*ts and giggles. I mean, seriously! Barack Obama had to publicize his birth certificate to prove that he was actually born in the United States. Will Sarah Palin release Trig's birth certificate to quell speculation and rumors? Doubt it.
    I don't see how I'm the one making assumptions about human behavior any more than anyone else here. People on this thread have speculated endlessly on how long the human gestation period should be (even though it varies by weeks), how big a pregnant woman should be (although it varies widely), whether it's irresponsible to get on a long flight to Alaska (even if the obstetrician approves), whether Palin can literally control every person in Wasilla from letting out this supposed deep secret (even though other "secrets" have surfaced).

    Seeing Sarah Palin walking around in Juneau isn't going to prove that she didn't carry the child.

    And Obama didn't publish his birth certificate. He published his certificate of "live birth" -- which is not what his parents received when he was born, but a facsimile attesting to where and when he was born. That's not Obama's fault, however.

    Regardless, there is still no smoking gun of any kind showing that Sarah Palin didn't give birth to Trig.

  12. #597
    Elite Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Posts
    4,180

    Default

    ^^You know, I'm sick and tired of hearing about Obama's damn birth certificate. I don't have my original birth certificate. Lots of people don't. I've even had kids recently and I don't have theirs. They didn't give me one. I filled out some stuff and I got a blank form I can fill out to request a certified copy for $10. I had to go do this when my son registered for Kindergarten. I had to get a certified copy when I got married. I don't think I have ever seen, nor do I know where to find, my ORIGINAL birth certificate. I don't even know if they give them to parents in all states, or at all. A certified copy is as official as it gets. So people can STFU about Obama's birth certificate not being good enough.

  13. #598
    Elite Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Posts
    3,807

    Default Re

    I believe the original birth certificate stays on file with the department of health or whatever agency it is in the place where you were born.

    You need a certified "official" copy of your BC to apply for a driver's license, passport, etc--it is on special paper with the official seal. But the original stays on file. The Hawaii dept of whatever has gone on record stating that his BC is legit.

  14. #599
    Elite Member MohandasKGanja's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Wherever my kids are
    Posts
    33,259

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by hotncmom View Post
    ^^You know, I'm sick and tired of hearing about Obama's damn birth certificate. I don't have my original birth certificate. Lots of people don't. I've even had kids recently and I don't have theirs. They didn't give me one. I filled out some stuff and I got a blank form I can fill out to request a certified copy for $10. I had to go do this when my son registered for Kindergarten. I had to get a certified copy when I got married. I don't think I have ever seen, nor do I know where to find, my ORIGINAL birth certificate. I don't even know if they give them to parents in all states, or at all. A certified copy is as official as it gets. So people can STFU about Obama's birth certificate not being good enough.
    I understand where you are coming from. I only mentioned it because someone else brought it up. In fact, I just read that representatives from Factcheck.org were allowed into Hawaii's archives to see one of the original Obama birth certificates generated after his birth. They testified to seeing it, including the raised-surface seal affixed to it.

    However, the earlier version that the Obama campaign released was the live-birth version. The same blogosphere that tore into the Dan Rather documents got all over this one, not understanding the difference between the two.

  15. #600
    Elite Member Grimmlok's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    In WhoreLand fucking your MOM
    Posts
    55,359

    Default

    dead yet?
    I am from the American CIA and I have a radio in my head. I am going to kill you.

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Similar Threads

  1. Sarah Palin ethics investigation
    By Fluffy in forum U.S. Politics and Issues
    Replies: 19
    Last Post: September 7th, 2008, 01:00 PM
  2. The real Sarah Palin trap!!
    By *DIVA! in forum U.S. Politics and Issues
    Replies: 6
    Last Post: September 1st, 2008, 11:52 AM
  3. Sarah Palin: It's worse than you think
    By Sasha in forum U.S. Politics and Issues
    Replies: 14
    Last Post: August 31st, 2008, 05:07 PM
  4. Sarah Palin unlikely to woo Hillary Clinton supporters
    By NicoleWasHere in forum U.S. Politics and Issues
    Replies: 64
    Last Post: August 30th, 2008, 02:30 PM
  5. The pros and cons of Sarah Palin
    By NicoleWasHere in forum U.S. Politics and Issues
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: August 30th, 2008, 01:37 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •