posted August 29, 2008 10:13 PM            

Hmm...Virgo / Aqua may be great. But in the age of aqua the king has to be a Leo (My astro beliefs LOL). That is the king of material world. Jesus may be king as a pisces in an piscean age. But in the material world it is exact reverse of spiritual LOL.

No, No, not that this is my prediction for Obama. I don't believe in predictions. Every moment is new.

I turned off Obamas speech last night within 5 minutes. It was such a boring drama of a power hungry politician and spectators looking for a messiah. A perfect energy interchange. I don't want a celebrity president in the white house with a Jimmy carter smile. (wait thats an old phrase...it must be -- with a Obama smile LOL) I want him to work on issues and deliver.

Anyhow ...my $.02

posted August 29, 2008 11:20 PM            

" I'm not going to say that dad can't take care of the kids, but it is fairly early in Trig Van Palin's life to be abandoning him for career aspirations. We could have a breast-feeding President potentially. Wouldn't that be a great choice for her to have to make: step in for recently deceased John McCain as President, or nuture your baby into toddler-hood? I can just imagine her absolutely needing to attend to a national security matter while her baby needs a hospital visit, and how that would play with the public."
http://www.hillaryclintonforum.net/discussion/forumdisplay.php?s=c991911 49e63cb59845af03413522612&f=84

silverstone, Sarah Palin strikes me as a down to earth woman with real strength of character who fights for what she believes.

I agree NosiS, Sarah Palin is a great choice and not just because she's a woman.

posted August 29, 2008 11:34 PM            

Ugh.. time for bed... I hate when my Leo is in the field...

posted August 29, 2008 11:57 PM            

I read there that someone heard on "Rush" that Democrats were making comments about her having a kid in her 40's. That's not remotely close to what I said (and it's hysterical that a "Hillary Clinton fan" listens to Limbaugh).

My comments are legitimate concerns anyone including yourself would raise. If Democrats put up a female candidate with a four-month old special needs child on the ticket, you'd be screaming about "Family Values" from the rooftops. How can that NOT be a valid concern for any citizen voting for the second-in-command? I'm in awe at how you have no critical thinking when it comes to matters of your own party.

quote:

---

No wonder I love Leo's so very much

---

posted August 30, 2008 05:53 AM            

I'm a SAHM but in no way do I think women should have no choice when it comes to raising their children or pursuing their careers ... no matter what that career is (within legal bounds, etc) or what conditions their children have if it's what they want and/or need to do. And, just for argument's sake ... is it that she is pursuing VP or should she have backed out of politics altogether to be a "good" mom? Raising a special needs child is, among other things, fairly expensive. Maybe the "right" thing would be to stay home and what? Get government assistance if her husband's pay can't cover the needs of all their children and themselves any more? Sorry. There are plenty of parents of special needs kids who do work and make a living and manage to provide loving, decent caretakers and specialists for their children. You know. Like many parents do for their otherwise normal children.

I don't at all feel her character is diminished by doing what many men in her situation would be doing. Maybe her husband should stay home if they can afford it. Somehow, I don't think that would fly as "good parenting" or good politics, either.

Color me shocked.

But don't take my word for it.

DownSyn Forum

quote:

---

subject:
CNN’s John Roberts: Palin Might Neglect Her Disabled Infant?


News reporters are ignorant when it comes to Down syndrome: http://newsbusters.org/blogs/matthew-balan/2008/08/29/cnn-s-jo hn-roberts-palin-might-neglect-her-disabled-infant

---

quote:

---

Igonrant is right. However, I watched Sarah Palin give her speech, I have a feeling she will deal with this issue, and teach a whole lot of people that our kids do not mean the end of the world. That who we were before, is not rearranged. She is a voice to be reckoned with, and she does it with dignity and grace! I have a feeling, a whole bunch of reporters are about to go to school!

---

But what the hell do they know? They're just parents of children with Down Syndrome.

posted August 30, 2008 11:58 AM            

Further, this ongoing attitude of yours that the Vice Presidency is just a regular job like any other is nonsense. It's the Vice Presidency. Joining a 72 year old on his quest for the White House, and knowing that he could go at any moment, is it responsible to join him while you're still breast-feeding a baby?

Are you saying that you would do it? Would you sacrifice visits to the hospital with your special needs child in order to defend the country? "Country First" is McCain's campaign slogan. Is it unreasonable to expect any mother of a four month old (even a perfectly healthy one) to be "Baby First"?

posted August 30, 2008 12:52 PM            

Please quote me where I said that being a Vice President is "just a regular job like any other". You can't because I didn't. Maybe it's easy for you to forget that women have been climbing up in the world. That the "appropriate" place for a woman can actually be Vice President or even President, not some job you decide is appropriate for a woman and a mommy. Yes, it's a hard and demanding career, harder than most other women face, perhaps. But the children of all these women have much in common. They have caretakers. They have bottles, which also work for breastmilk assuming you can provide a supply. [Is she breastfeeding? Kudos to her. The child is four months old. The elections are 3 months away. On average, women who even bother to breastfeed any more don't often go past the 6 month mark. Many, surprise, because they have to return to a career that simply doesn't allow for that kind of bond to continue. You do the math. And, btw, the recommended time is at least 1 yr, preferrably 2 yrs. Take a guess at what percentage of women, work or no, actually meet that mark.] They spend a majority of their time away from their parents. Somehow, fathers don't get the same guilt trip that mothers do. And although a mommy bond is hugely important, the conclusive professional opinion is still out on 1) how much time is actually unarguably uncompromisable and 2) just how much children suffer from not having daddy around more. I don't see men dropping their careers on the chance that working these many hours is going to hurt their baby.

Would I do it? Hypothetically? If I had worked my arse off in the political arena? You'd better believe I would not allow any amount of misogyny to get in the way of my dreams. Howeer, I'm just not built that way and chose the often equally maligned option of staying home, despite very reasonable and more financially sensible alternatives, to raise our child.

Those criticizing Palin are basing their opinions on their ideas of what a "good mother" should be and assuming the worst possible scenario for her family. How fair is that? "Nope. Sorry. Can't be a high-powered career woman. You have a baby." Do you even realize how backwards that is? Do you realize how many women are still trying to break down the corporate barriers that are built up of those same kinds of ignorant opinions? And do you even realize the amount of abuse children can come into even if their moms do stay home to care for them? Is that what people focus on when a woman wants to stay home? "Statistics show that XYZ amount of SAHM abuse their children ..." Not really as, logically, that's the worst possible scenario.

No, this is not a "normal" job. It is one of the highest offices a woman has ever had the chance of attaining. Hillary had a good chance at an even higher one before the rug was swiped out from beneath her feet.

Whether or not any of you want to see it, there are many children who grow up in daycares and/or with nannies ... some from birth. And they are not automatically less loved or cared for and neither are they destined for lives of misery just because mommy went to work. Do you know the hours surgeons work, for heaven's sake? Though the jobs are not the same, the hours are exhaustive overall and the commitments and struggles are great. Families make it work every single day. Single mothers and fathers make it work, too.

Like it or not, the time is coming when women will not be forced into accepting lesser positions just because they want/have a family, too. Look at the statistics already of females who complete a college education versus males. Consider Palin a trailblazer and one who will hopefully light a spark under other people's arses to make it not a social faux pas to have a child and still achieve your goals, whatever they are. And maybe, just maybe, if enough women manage to buck the system, the system will change. Maybe one day, the idea of a woman staying home to care for her child for 6 months or a year or [insert your ideal here] will not mean career suicide in high powered fields. Which, as much as I'd like it to be different, is precisely what it means at this point in time. And we cannot deny where that attitude comes from, can we? Where is a woman's most important place? [Hint, you bet it's a trick question.]

This is the cheapest attack on a candidate I've seen so far.

posted August 30, 2008 02:04 PM            

The party which claims to champion women's rights, equal pay for women, equal status for women and equal opportunity for women stabbed a woman in the back who was not only equal to O'Bomber but superior in every way to their Messiah. They robbed Hillary of the nomination.

Now, another woman who is also superior to the leftist Messiah...in every way which counts..executive experience on the job..of which the Messiah has none, zip, nada, zilch runs for VP and what do these leftist misogynists do?

In typical leftist misogynist style, they attack the woman with a host of nonsense accusations and reasons why she can't be Vice President.

There is no bottom to the pit of hatred from which these leftist women haters hurl their insults. How typical of the haters that they would attempt to use a baby as a reason she is unfit to serve.

What's really happening here is that Sarah Palin..the Republican nominee for Vice President trumps the leftist Messiah for president in executive and life experience.

Now, Sarah Palin is a feminist of the first order but not one of theirs. They already bent, folded, spindled, mutilated and rejected Hillary, one of their own feminists.

How dare Sarah Palin run. She must be destroyed by whatever means.

It's not going to fly. The more O'Bomber/O'Biden and their useful idiots in the press...and their sycophants in the various leftist groups attack Palin, the stronger American women..men too...will identify with her. Palin is much more like America than the leftist elitist empty suits in the demoscat party, the DNC and the 2 clowns at the top of the demoscat ticket.

Wife, religious, mother, hockey mom, union member, hunter..with a gun and independent minded. Every single facet of which the empty headed moron, O'Bomber railed against in his meeting with his fellow elitists in San Francisco. Those who cling to their guns and religion.

Sarah Palin is the left's worst nightmare and she's close right now to driving the final nail in the coffin of O'Bomber/O'Biden.

RIP

posted August 30, 2008 02:36 PM            

quote:

---

Please quote me where I said that being a Vice President is "just a regular job like any other". You can't because I didn't.

---

You repeatedly spoke as if this were a regular career move when it isn't. And you continue to make remarks that link her situation to regular situations.

quote:

---

That the "appropriate" place for a woman can actually be Vice President or even President, not some job you decide is appropriate for a woman and a mommy.

---

I see, so you can decide what's "appropriate" for a woman and a mommy, but other people's judgment must necessarily be sexist or something, and not at all rooted in the practicality of family and child raising?

I am the second oldest of five children of two parents. There's a seven year separation between my birth and the birth of my next sister, so I know the experience first hand. My mom was a stay at home mom as well. These are things that inform my values.

quote:

---

And, btw, the recommended time is at least 1 yr, preferrably 2 yrs.

---

I knew it was at least one year, and I say kudos to you for starting to really consider the situation her and her child are in.

quote:

---

If I had worked my arse off in the political arena?

---

Let's not assume she worked her ass off. The state is smaller in population than San Francisco. The population of the city I live in is equal to 63% of the amount of people who put her in office. There's no telling whether she would even be considered viable candidate in a bigger market. Mayor Guiliani has more experience governing more people than she does.

quote:

---

You'd better believe I would not allow any amount of misogyny to get in the way of my dreams.

---

The only person taking advantage of a woman here is John McCain, so I think the charge of misogyny is unfounded.

quote:

---

Those criticizing Palin are basing their opinions on their ideas of what a "good mother" should be and assuming the worst possible scenario for her family. How fair is that?

---

Perfectly fair. Would she have won the Presidential nomination if she had run for President? If your answer is No, then you understand that the same fears that would guide that decision are the same fears that govern this decision.

quote:

---

Whether or not any of you want to see it, there are many children who grow up in daycares and/or with nannies ... some from birth....etc

---

Once again, for me there has to be a distinction because of the position she's going for. Even as governor of Alaska, the task of child rearing has to be easier than it will be in the second-in-command spot.

quote:

---

Consider Palin a trailblazer and one who will hopefully light a spark under other people's arses to make it not a social faux pas to have a child and still achieve your goals, whatever they are. And maybe, just maybe, if enough women manage to buck the system, the system will change. Maybe one day, the idea of a woman staying home to care for her child for 6 months or a year or [insert your ideal here] will not mean career suicide in high powered fields.

---

There's two things to deal with here. The first is the notion that by bringing up her family situation, people are saying that she shouldn't be in a career. She HAS a career. She has a career that is not in jeopardy even. It's not in jeopardy because of her baby, and it's not in jeopardy because she's got high approval ratings in that position. Her having a baby was never going to be career suicide for her.

The second is the idea of her being a trailblazer. Is it a great day in America when we endorse a woman with a baby for the Vice Presidency? You have chosen to be to be a stay at home mom. That is a reflection of your values. Now you're railing against the people who have your values, and calling it a cheap attack. There's a conflict there...

... and I suspect there will be a conflict there for lots of people including the working single mothers and fathers you use in your argument. No one's going to fault a person for putting their family first, so it shouldn't be a surprise that people will fault a person who brings a baby to the national Presidential ticket.

posted August 30, 2008 04:03 PM            

quote:

---

You repeatedly spoke as if this were a regular career move when it isn't. And you continue to make remarks that link her situation to regular situations. acoustic

---

For a politician, moving up the political ladder is the usual career move. Next higher rung for a Governor is a National Political office, including Vice President or President. Remember Kommander Korruption? Remember Jimmy Carter? Remember the incomparable Ronald Reagan?

quote:

---

I see, so you can decide what's "appropriate" for a woman and a mommy, but other people's judgment must necessarily be sexist or something, and not at all rooted in the practicality of family and child raising? acoustic

---

A true misogynist statement which would get you run out of any meeting of a women's group. Besides being none of your business whatsoever. You are not in charge of raising Palin's children. She seems to be doing an excellent job as a mother and has an 84% job approval rating with the citizens of Alaska. Just more misyoginist blather.

quote:

---

I knew it was at least one year, and I say kudos to you for starting to really consider the situation her and her child are in....acoustic

---

What you're really considering is the crimp in the style of O'Bomber/O'Biden Palin running puts them in. Your objection on the baby issue is just the usual blather we hear from you constantly, fraud, deceit and cannard. You don't give a damn about Palin or her baby and we both know it.

quote:

---

Let's not assume she worked her ass off. The state is smaller in population than San Francisco. The population of the city I live in is equal to 63% of the amount of people who put her in office. There's no telling whether she would even be considered viable candidate in a bigger market. Mayor Guiliani has more experience governing more people than she does...acoustic

---

Palin is the Chief Executive Officer in the largest state in the United States, the decider and from her job approval ratings, it's a job she's doing very well.Guiliani was not a Governor nor did he negotiate trade deals with other nations....as Palin has. O'Biden wasn't considered a viable candidate in the bigger market he attempted to capture...President...twice.

quote:

---

The only person taking advantage of a woman here is John McCain, so I think the charge of misogyny is unfounded...acoustic

---

The charge of misogymist fits you perfectly. It also fits the bloviating morons Howard Dean, Joe Biden and the Messiah, O'Bomber. You're in leftist country there. McCain/Palin have a lot in common. Both are maverick reformers and Palin is more conservative than McCain. So, according the oracle acoustic, any woman McCain picked would have been unsuitable...because McCain would have been taking advantage of her. In acoustic's world, no women need apply. If that's not sexist I don't know what the hell would be.

quote:

---

Would she have won the Presidential nomination if she had run for President? If your answer is No, then you understand that the same fears that would guide that decision are the same fears that govern this decision....acoustic

---

Would VP candidate Joe O'Biden have won the presidential nomination if he had run? Oh wait, he did run; he ran twice so far and failed both times. End of that line of attack...if you've got enough on the ball to see this is a dead end issue.

quote:

---

Once again, for me there has to be a distinction because of the position she's going for. Even as governor of Alaska, the task of child rearing has to be easier than it will be in the second-in-command spot. ...acoustic

---

Why don't you give us a couple of paragraphs on all your personal experience in child rearing acoustic; you know acoustic, the day in day out routine. Here you are bloviating about something you know nothing about...unless you've been holding out on us....Mommy.

quote:

---

There's two things to deal with here. The first is the notion that by bringing up her family situation, people are saying that she shouldn't be in a career. She HAS a career. She has a career that is not in jeopardy even....acoustic

---

Palin's career as Vice President isn't going to be in jeapordy either acoustic...in spite of you and other bloviators of nonsense attempting to make a baby an issue. Your real objection to Palin is that she's a better candidate and more experienced than the empty suit at the top of the demoscat ticket...and plagerizing bloviator at the bottom of the demoscat ticket too.

quote:

---

I suspect that this response adequately answers Jwhop's inane post as well....acoustic

---

If bullshiit was golden, you'd be King Midas by now acoustic.

posted August 30, 2008 05:21 PM            

I'm no sexist misogynist. That's an argument you could never make successfully against me.

You and I both know you'd be making your concerns known if it was a Democrat with the baby, so it's quite disingenuous of you to even try to go there. It's the only point you didn't tackle, and it's the only point you can't find a straw to grasp at.

Across the country the first reactions to McCain's choice is that he's obviously making a play for Hillary's supporters. He's using a woman for the sake of her gender to draw people in. And what were her first words? Quotes about Hillary from the Democratic convention. There couldn't be a more obviously misogynistic move.

You can try making the case (which you, and all the Republicans on tv are trying to make) that she's a Republican governor with experience, but that's a completely disingenuous argument as well. 20 months of governorship over a state so relatively small in population and economy does not prove her qualifications whatsoever. Let's see her win a mayoral contest in a city of Alaska's population size. It's like saying that the CEO of a pawn ship is on par with Jack Welch, because they've both ran business for some period of time. It's not an apples to apples comparison. This is something we both know.

quote:

---

You don't give a damn about Palin or her baby and we both know it.

---

That's frankly highly offensive. I have long stated my support for adoption in this very forum, so NO we DO NOT both view my care for children in the same way.

quote:

---

So, according the oracle acoustic, any woman McCain picked would have been unsuitable...because McCain would have been taking advantage of her. In acoustic's world, no women need apply. If that's not sexist I don't know what the hell would be.

---

As writesomething mentioned, why didn't he pick Condoleeza Rice? She would be a person with national experience that would prove he wasn't merely picking someone for her gender. Instead, he picked the best person available to showcase that his pick was based on gender: someone with zero national experience and less exposure than the guy he's campaigning against. We all know that the VP picks serve to appeal to a constituency or shore up weaknesses. It was and is obvious that John is STILL trying to woo Hillary supporters...with an unassuming white mother.

quote:

---

Would VP candidate Joe O'Biden have won the presidential nomination if he had run?

---

That response is 100% removed from the context of the point I was making, which is about a woman with a four month old child running for President. It could be any woman from anywhere. Would she win either party's nomination? No.

(A white man, who's been in the Senate for ages, on the other hand can win the nomination as evidenced by numerous presidential contenders.)

quote:

---

Your real objection to Palin is that she's a better candidate and more experienced than the empty suit at the top of the demoscat ticket...and plagerizing bloviator at the bottom of the demoscat ticket too.

---

How can a person feel threatened by someone we hardly know? We don't know the answer yet to how she's going to answer for all of her liabilities. Will she be stunning in setting aside people's concerns, or will her perceived liabilities continue on as actual liabilities?

posted August 31, 2008 12:37 AM            

You may not want to see the path that a career in politics takes ... or at the very least decide that it shouldn't be a viable goal for a woman with a child of a certain age and/or condition.

You may refuse to see the very obvious similarities between Palin and the millions of other women who work and whose children are in daycare or with other caretakers often for extended periods of time.

You may stubbornly cling to the idea that a woman being VP or President is never going to be a "regular situation" and that certain women should be automatically barred from trying.

You may think that just because I or any other woman chose to stay home and raise our children that we should believe all women who don't are somehow wrong or don't care about their families. That women who make their careers a priority are somehow taking something away from their family without giving anything back of value.

You may think you understand my point regarding breastfeeding. To reiterate, although the idea of other women in similar situations is anathema to you, the overwhelming majority of women DO NOT breastfeed for the recommended period of time. What do you have to say about them? Is it okay to work at double shifts at Walmart and not breastfeed for the full two years but go for VP and you're just plain evil? You assume that her settling for not advancing down the same path most if not all other men in politics vie for should be enough.

You may want to assume that you have some great insight into exactly what Palin's career has cost her and decide that it really isn't all that big an achievement.

You may want to believe that a man in a powerful position is taking advantage of a woman when he is doing nothing more than supporting her goals of advancement which she darn well earned.

You may assume you know the minds of the many and that you can conclude precisely why, no doubts, 100% guaranteed, Palin is going for VP and not President. All we do know factually about women being cheated out of the Presidency lays solely on the DNC and Democrats all around. What excuse there? Is Chelsea still demanding too much of mommy's time? Gotta' put that family first, Hil. You were okay so long as you were standing behind Bill.

You may assume that you know fully first hand just how challenging being a mommy is, how challenging being a mommy to a Down Syndrome child is, how much support her family can and is giving her, and precisely how high powered women find ways to balance career and family obligations. Which, to you, translates as too demanding and setting up for failure. Don't climb too high Wombs.

You may assume that any woman's position is a reflection of only her values ... and completely ignore the women whose positions are also highly influenced by their needs, other goals and the, to you, seemingly ridiculous desire to reach for something greater.

You may assume that everyone sees "family values" as per your personal definition.

On all accounts and by all measures, you are wrong. You have every right to be wrong and refuse to see that you're wrong but you don't speak for anyone but yourself and your assumptions only reflect on you. And to save time, I know the path this may very well take and I'm really not interested in your "logical" circumlocution.

posted August 31, 2008 01:01 AM            

[general comments]

So, just how many were shocked at this choice, at least first off? I know I was.

How about her actual stance on the issues which has been strangely ignored in the focus on her gender and family in the media? I don't agree with her stance on abortion entirely but most of her other ideas are more or less in line with how I'd vote though I can't say any of the candidates are a 100% match for me. I think the two biggest issues that Dems will try and take a bite out of her for (aside from her family and gender) are her stances on abortion and same sex marriages. Also, I can already see how arguing her "inexperience" is an attempt to create a saving grace for the Dems nevermind that their prime candidate isn't all that better off in the experience arena himself. While that's likely to be downplayed, do you think, for show, it would've been better for McCain to go with a more well-rounded choice?

posted August 31, 2008 01:02 AM            

I'm excited to see what nonsense she spits out during this election season.....sure to be amusing.

The combination of the two just seems so weak to me.....aquarius/virgo? blech

posted August 31, 2008 01:11 AM            

And I think from what I know of aquas.
They don't let there personal choices interfere with others. They are very understanding of others in fact.

She is true to her words and lives by them and I appreciate that in her.

Mc Cain is also a virgo. He does not show off his generosity.

posted August 31, 2008 03:41 AM            

quote:

---

Heya, AG. Too much blather to work through and I haven't got the time atm to enter a quote and paste "discussion".

---

Heya Eleanore! I thought I posted a fairly respectful response to your post, so to hear that my words are "blather" is rather surprising.

quote:

---

You may...
You may...
You may...
You may...
You may...

---

Is this supposed to be a successful attempt at painting me in a different light than I paint myself?

quote:

---

You may want to believe that a man in a powerful position is taking advantage of a woman when he is doing nothing more than supporting her goals of advancement which she darn well earned.

---

The first clip of her when she was introduced by McCain was of her talking about the glass ceiling mentioned in regard to Hillary at the Democratic convention. Today, at another campaign stop (Washington, PA), the exact same words came out. How can a person watch that without thinking that this is a move for Hillary's supporters? (She also paid homage to Ferraro by name.)

And if you're fooled into believing that her experience is hard won, then McCain's plan is working. You should hope that everyone is just like you, and will give her the same free pass, because that is John McCain's only hope to win the Presidency.

quote:

---

You may assume you know the minds of the many and that you can conclude precisely why, no doubts, 100% guaranteed, Palin is going for VP and not President. All we do know factually about women being cheated out of the Presidency lays solely on the DNC and Democrats all around. What excuse there? Is Chelsea still demanding too much of mommy's time? Gotta' put that family first, Hil. You were okay so long as you were standing behind Bill.

---

This whole statement doesn't compute in my mind. The first sentence, if you're asking if I know why Palin didn't run for President, I don't know, but I can reasonably assume it would have something to do with being a first time governor with just 20 months experience who would have had less experience [than that] when she started her Presidential campaign, AND who also would've been pregnant (AND who would have had to have had the baby while on the campaign trail). Throw in her competition for that job, and it's really a no-brainer.

How does Chelsea factor into her mom's loss at all, much less at her age require her mother's time? That doesn't compute.

quote:

---

You may assume that any woman's position is a reflection of only her values ... and completely ignore the women whose positions are also highly influenced by their needs, other goals and the, to you, seemingly ridiculous desire to reach for something greater.

---

You are attributing some truly ridiculous things to me. When did I ever say she couldn't reach for something greater? Want to go back to my third post on the topic of Palin?

quote:

---

You may assume that everyone sees "family values" as per your personal definition.

---

Or I may assume that everyone sees "family values" as per the Republican definition.

quote:

---

On all accounts and by all measures, you are wrong. You have every right to be wrong and refuse to see that you're wrong but you don't speak for anyone but yourself and your assumptions only reflect on you. And to save time, I know the path this may very well take and I'm really not interested in your "logical" circumlocution.

---

On the contrary, I think you're so offended that I'm right that you've sought to paint me in the least flattering light you could dream up. I'm guessing that you didn't like that I see and pointed out the contradiction between your actions and your words.

"Circumlocution" would be a perceptual error on your part. I make my point as quickly and succintly as possible in all situations, and then I end up having to explain the bits other people can't pick up along the way. The opinions I've provided here have been consistent from the start, so any verbosity on my part is primarily a matter of restatement. Sometimes I unfortunately have to retool the points so people can really understand what I am saying, and stop making counterpoints to arguments I've already sufficiently made.