please people. it's not true. now.....ahem....

[MrsBrady]

people :argh:

http://www.polartrec.com/node/3944
This woman saw Palin pregnant in March. Palin had her baby in April.
This was posted long before there was any issue.
I at first was misled by these rumors. It's BS. Let's move on.

Palin is a slimy republican. She's anti-everything.
We need to dismiss repukes not on slime, but on the issues!!!!!

Now. There are plenty of things to get her on that have real evidence!

She's anti-environment, anti-gay, anti-woman, anti-science.
She's under investigation on several issues in Alaska. Why, she's perfect for them (repukes)!

Let's go get'em on the issues.
Let's get her on a woman's right to have control over her body...after all -- that's what she did!

I don't understand how a women could vote against her own interests. But she's one of them.
Let's talk about that. She's nothing like Hillary. THAT is what we need to be talking about.

Thank you.
:dem:
*stepping down from soapbox*

[cliffordu]

1. Thanks for posting this.

[MrsBrady]

3. thanks for reading

:hi:

[mrreowwr_kittty]

2. Works for me! K and R. nt

[elocs]

4. Well said. There is plenty of existing evidence and facts as to why she is not qualified to be VP.

We never should have felt the need to go down the far out baby route that would have had most Americans viewing us as ridiculous when it was disproved.

[MichiganVote]

5. Maybe she's a Muslim instead.

[blue cat]

6. thanks for the laugh

good night!

[cameozalaznick]

7. But why was she flying in March if she was due in April? eom

[MrsBrady]

9. don't agree with it...

but her choice to make.

all I'm saying is that we need to talk about the issues, instead of this bs.

[Bonobo]

8. Fine with me, but if it HAD turned out to be true, what would you have said then?

[TexasObserver]

10. that proves nothing

[Beregond2]

11. Oh, well, if one person who is obviously a Republican says it's

true, it must be true, despite all evidence to the contrary. :sarcasm:

[Bread and Circus]

12. No offense, but it appears your comprehension of the article is a bit off.

The article was written after Trig Palin was born and the reference is made in hindsight.

I'm not saying the baby's not hers, but I think the jury is sure out on this one. There's a lot of weirdness about all of this.

[kath]

13. Thank you, beat me to it. The article was written AFTER THE BABY WAS BORN

the level of reading comprehension around here never ceases to amaze me...

[MrsBrady]

15. excuse me...

it was written in April, but she was remembering March. First couple of lines in her post.
Thanks :)

[Bread and Circus]

17. Exactly, she wrote the article AFTER the baby was born...

and there is absolutely NOTHING in the article to suggest she had a clue that Palin was pregnant at the time.

Hence, my questioning of your reading comprehension is apt.

[Nine]

14. Jesus. Can all of you really be so clueless?

You think this proves something? Have you lost all your faculties?

[Heather MC]

16. Hmmm it's a another Jacket picture indoors???? I want to see a belly

a shot with her and all the kids touching her belly with finger paints and a baby mold
the speculation continues
:rofl:

[grantcart]

18. I have no idea whose baby it is but I would assume that those that theorize

that it was not her's would also suppose that at some point she would have to wear some kind of a pillow.

If she was pregnant I marvel how little extra weight she picked up in her neck and face they appear completely unchanged at all.