How can people on YA adoption still be peddling the BS about Palin's 5th child?

Question

First of all, it should be posted in the politics section, not YA adoption.

2nd:How in the heck can Sarah Palin's 5th child actually be her daughter's when her 5th child is 4 months old and her daughter is 5 months pregnant. It makes no sense!!! Where is your proof? Can we please move on to something else and wuit peddling complete, irrelevant lies on YA adoption?

Answer 1

Because they have dead horses to beat and will do it until the cows come home!

Answer 2

Well, do you ACTUALLY know that Bristol is 5 months pregnant? I mean, we can take her mom's word for it, but where is YOUR proof? Hmm?

Of course it makes sense for a woman 40+ to have more of a likelihood of birthing a child with down syndrome, but is it entirely unheard of of others also having the same experience? And, whether or not the baby is truly Sarah's, I found it interesting that she didn't look pregnant, and travelled across the country while "in labor" before she gave birth. It's all just speculation, but it's still interesting. Politicians and others in the spotlight are bound to have people interested in their lives, so it's not malicious, just interesting...much like reading about Bigfoot or the Loch Ness monster...but in either case, you have just as little 'proof' as those who might suspect the baby isn't sarah's, yeah?

ETA: um, sorry, but you can't assume that because she looks 5 months pregnant that she IS 5 months pregnant, because if you did, then you'd have to look at Sarah who was 7 months pregnant and say "no friggin way" she was 7 months pregnant. So if you're going off what your supposed picture of pregnancy is, then you'd have to use it in both cases.

Here's a link that shows what Palin looked like 7 months pregnant with one of her earlier kids, and then 7 months pregnant with Trig...would you suspect she was 7 months along? http://www.ndgold.com/2008/08/did-sarah-...

And BTW, I'm not "Independant." I was JennaBear for forever, but got tired of my real name being used on the internet. If you have been around long enough here you'd recognize it like the regulars do. Seriously...

ETA: that wasn't where I got "information" from, it's an example of pictures. The picture of her 7 months pregnant this last time around is taken from a video that was filmed when she was 7 months pregnant...an interview on the news about alaska, blah blah blah. she doesn't look 7 months pregnant.  Here's those same pictures, but better quality, you can watch videos online, too...http://alaskapodshow.com/index.php/2008/...

Oh yes, math and science...just because someone looks 5 months pregnant doesn't mean they are. Actresses look pregnant in movies and they aren't. Seriously. I don't care one way or the other, I'm just saying that your argument is flawed...you can't just look at someone and say 'they are definitely 5 months along.' What if she's only 4 months pregnant and it is possible to get pregnant right after birth. Likely? probably not. I don't really care, I just think that you need to take a step back and look at your own argument "she looks 5 months pregnant"...

Answer 3

ABSOLUTELY agreed.. I was thinking the same thing. I was thinking the "Dates" didn't match up.. I was going to post a similar question to this, but hadn't had time to confirm how old Sarah's youngest baby was and how far along h er daughter was

There's one person I know of peddling this insanity on this forum, just like all the other insanity he/she constantly spews..  This proves to me (and hopefully to everyone) that this person is a consipracy theorist who's perspective is skewed and shouldn't be taken seriously..

Basically this person is so anti-AP that he/she is peddling this insane story to try to "prove" her point that EVERY unmarried (esp. young) female is forced to give her child up.  The poster basically asked if we thought Palin would force her daughter to give her baby up, just like she did her first one. The idea is that Sarah Palin forced her daughter to give her child to her (Sarah) to cover  up the fact that  she (daughter) was pregnant at a young age, etc, etc...

ridicuous

Glad to know the poster's other screen name... The arguments and wording is exactly the same as in the other  question

Answer 4

Gosh you're pretty familiar with Y!A's for just signing up.....

hmmm..

people will "peddle" about whatever they want. Clearly.

Answer 5

Dear charliehorse,

My head is spinning with this mess.  I tend to wait it all out.  The truth always comes out.  As far as children go, i like to leave them out of political debates.  Its not fair.  

Answer 6

Well if it helps there is a whole issue how Sarah Palin went into labor while on a plane flight trying to get back to Alaska during her pregnancy.  It's her baby people get a life.

Answer 7

agreed.

Answer 8

It's no different then those that insist on speaking crud about Obama's and McCain's places of birth and their legal ability to hold office, the reasons why the twin towers fell, aliens in Area 51, dead rock stars still being alive and living in Billings Montana.  

Some people just love to gossip and others just love to listen to gossip.

Some look to get a rise out of others and some get a kick out of watching others spin.  

That's why God invented the "delete" key.

Answer 9

I have no idea.  But some people will use any vague connection to adoption to enspouse political beliefs, despite the fact that there is a separate politics forum.  Heck, and an elections forum.  Two choices.  

But of course if you are so radical as to suggest that the adoption forum should be... you know... about adoption, then you will be accused of being part of the "vast right wing, conservative, christian conspiracy"  that tries to silence everyone.

Answer 10

They're still insisting that stuff is true?! And why would they be in here lying? I guess they're not getting the support and answers they want from politics so they've come to bother you as if people in the adoption section are here to see that kind of stuff. I hope they go to other sections and bother others and it backfires on them. They're something, aren't they? I guess they so much want it to be true that they can't give it up even when it's been proven false. Boy are they worried.

I don't see the hypocrisy in the question. What is it?

Answer 11

My question is whats up w those names? Bristol and Trig? I didnt know those were her kids names! Anyway, i know thats off topic...You're right the math doesnt add up and what would be the motivation anyway? Shes pregnant now and theres no cover up...odd the things people get worked up about

Answer 12

Anyone else see the hypocracy in this question?

LOL.... glad you agree about the hypocracy. For those who don't see it, the question is about Palin etc and posted in adoption but clearly states that these sort of questions should be posted in politics not adoption.

Anyways, to answer your question, I am Aussie so don't really know much about it but from what I can gather, they are trying to say that Palin said she was pregnant to cover her daughter's pregnancy and that the Down's baby (can't remember the name Tryn or something??) was really the daughter's etc but that can't be possible if the daughter is now really 5 months pregnant.... but I don;t know if that's true...

It's just the same political bull we see everywhere