Palin

NEW -> Contingent Buyer Assistance Program
I don't think anyone is calling Palin a "saint" for keeping her child.



What's impressive is she practices what she preaches.



You may not like what she preaches, and that's fine, but she deserves credit for standing by her beliefs in the most difficult of circumstances. She's demonstrated a measure of integrity.



Unlike so many politicians, she did not flip flop and that's cool.



I like Palin. I don't love her as the VP choice b/c of the experience thing, but I think she's very impressive as a person. I hope she kicks butt. They have my vote.
 
Since it's more fun to discuss rumors and finding skeletons in the closet than it is do discuss actual issues, take a look at this rumor:

from the

<a href="http://voices.washingtonpost.com/thefix/2008/08/the_palin_stunner.html">comments in the Washington Post</a>



<blockquote>"hat story about Palin's baby being her daughter's is not at all crazy.



As a matter of fact that will be the big story in the next few days.



I am from Alaska.



And by the way the rumor that her daughter had a bun in the oven started BEFORE Sarah announced she was even pregnant! It was started, apparently, by her daughters high school classmates. Who noticed that Bristol Palin was out of school for months with a bad case of Mono.



It was only in early March that Sarah said she was pregnant and then delivered on April 18th, right after flying in from Texas on a 12 hour flight AFTER her water supposedly broke.



Still think it is crazy?



Posted by: Gryphen | August 30, 2008 3:22 PM </blockquote>
 
[quote author="ABC123" date=1220153116]Since it's more fun to discuss rumors and finding skeletons in the closet than it is do discuss actual issues, take a look at this rumor:

from the

<a href="http://voices.washingtonpost.com/thefix/2008/08/the_palin_stunner.html">comments in the Washington Post</a>



<blockquote>"hat story about Palin's baby being her daughter's is not at all crazy.



As a matter of fact that will be the big story in the next few days.



I am from Alaska.



And by the way the rumor that her daughter had a bun in the oven started BEFORE Sarah announced she was even pregnant! It was started, apparently, by her daughters high school classmates. Who noticed that Bristol Palin was out of school for months with a bad case of Mono.



It was only in early March that Sarah said she was pregnant and then delivered on April 18th, right after flying in from Texas on a 12 hour flight AFTER her water supposedly broke.



Still think it is crazy?



Posted by: Gryphen | August 30, 2008 3:22 PM </blockquote></blockquote>


ABC123, there is no other way to put it. You really are a disgusting piece of shit.
 
If you think I'm disgusting, you should read some of the comments posted on <a href="http://www.dailykos.com/story/2008/8/29/17933/7330/417/579267">the Daily Kos</a>
 
[quote author="GoIllini" date=1220132454][quote author="BMP 309" date=1220105447][quote author="Trooper" date=1220103710]Since we're on the subject, would you support her right to marry a same sex partner?</blockquote>


The government really should not be involved...I have many republican friends that have disagreed, but truthfully-it is <strong>not</strong> the Republican way to tell people who they can or can not marry. Way more Fascist than Rep... The answer is yes--support.</blockquote>


I've wondered why the government has <em>any</em> involvement in marriage. If two people feel the need to solemnize their union by a religious service, and they can find a church/mosque/temple/chapel willing to hold that service, go for it and invite me to the party. But I wouldn't expect a church to perform such a service for a gay couple if church doctrine opposes it. Find a different church. For two adults (regardless of sex, but legally able to enter contracts) who want the legal protections and obligations that are now provided by marriage, go to the county clerk and pay five bucks for a license and sign your name. Call the latter a "Civil Union" for everybody, not just those that can't get "married" because they don't meet the legal definition of a "couple". Keep the church and State separate.</blockquote>


That's an EXTREMELY close-minded statement. Reminds me of when I lived in Texas and a guy commented to me that his hometown was very liberal, in that "only 50% of the town's residents worship in town. The other 50% worship in neighboring towns."



In other words, Illini, if two athiests want to get married, it's not a "real" marriage? Because it didn't take place in a church? I am so sick of fundamentalist bible-thumpers and their world view that if you don't believe what I believe, you are less than human!
 
ISM,



The "chosen" religions have spoken:





So for those who might be interested, here's the inside on how McCain chose Palin over Romney, Guiliani, Huckabee, Condi, Lieberman and the others on "the short list."



For weeks, advisers close to the campaign said, Mr. McCain had wanted to name as his running mate his good friend Senator Joseph I. Lieberman of Connecticut, the Democrat turned independent. But by the end of last weekend, the outrage from Christian conservatives over the possibility that Mr. McCain would fill out the Republican ticket with Mr. Lieberman, a supporter of abortion rights, had become too intense to be ignored.

...

At 11 a.m. on Thursday, at the McCain vacation compound near Sedona, Ariz., Mr. McCain invited Ms. Palin to join him on the ticket. He hardly knew her, and she had virtually no foreign policy experience, but Ms. Palin was a ?kindred spirit,? a McCain adviser said.

...

Last Sunday, ... Mr. McCain met with his senior campaign team at the Ritz-Carlton Hotel in Phoenix. By then, campaign advisers said, the group had long decided that Mr. McCain?s ?experience versus change? argument against Mr. Obama had run its course, to the extent that it had worked at all.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/08/31/us/politics/31reconstruct....



Great inside reporting on the decision process.
 
[quote author="ABC123" date=1220221740]If you think I'm disgusting, you should read some of the comments posted on <a href="http://www.dailykos.com/story/2008/8/29/17933/7330/417/579267">the Daily Kos</a></blockquote>


No "think" about it. I know you are disgusting.



For the record, here is a picture of Sarah Palin at the end of February. She certainly looks quite a bit heavier than she does today.



<img src="http://community.adn.com/sites/community.adn.com/files/images/govp_washingtondc2008_large.preview.jpg" alt="" />



Source: <a href="http://community.adn.com/node/118874">Palin pregnancy</a>
 
Winex,



I just read your personal attack on another poster. Please keep your anger in check. These are ONLY message boards. Please make the choice to respect others who may have views that differ from yours.
 
[quote author="NoWowway" date=1220234025]Winex,



I just read your personal attack on another poster. Please keep your anger in check. These are ONLY message boards. Please make the choice to respect others who may have views that differ from yours.</blockquote>


If you are referring to my post to ABC123, that isn't anger. It's a simple statement of fact.



Should I point you to where BLTSERV accused me of being in the KKK so that you can admonish him?
 
[quote author="irvinesinglemom" date=1220224028][quote author="GoIllini" date=1220132454][quote author="BMP 309" date=1220105447][quote author="Trooper" date=1220103710]Since we're on the subject, would you support her right to marry a same sex partner?</blockquote>


The government really should not be involved...I have many republican friends that have disagreed, but truthfully-it is <strong>not</strong> the Republican way to tell people who they can or can not marry. Way more Fascist than Rep... The answer is yes--support.</blockquote>


I've wondered why the government has <em>any</em> involvement in marriage. If two people feel the need to solemnize their union by a religious service, and they can find a church/mosque/temple/chapel willing to hold that service, go for it and invite me to the party. But I wouldn't expect a church to perform such a service for a gay couple if church doctrine opposes it. Find a different church. For two adults (regardless of sex, but legally able to enter contracts) who want the legal protections and obligations that are now provided by marriage, go to the county clerk and pay five bucks for a license and sign your name. Call the latter a "Civil Union" for everybody, not just those that can't get "married" because they don't meet the legal definition of a "couple". Keep the church and State separate.</blockquote>


That's an EXTREMELY close-minded statement. Reminds me of when I lived in Texas and a guy commented to me that his hometown was very liberal, in that "only 50% of the town's residents worship in town. The other 50% worship in neighboring towns."



In other words, Illini, if two athiests want to get married, it's not a "real" marriage? Because it didn't take place in a church? I am so sick of fundamentalist bible-thumpers and their world view that if you don't believe what I believe, you are less than human!</blockquote>


Whew! I don't think you interpreted my post as I intended it. I'll try again. First of all, marriage, in my opinion, has two separate foundations and/or functions -- religious and legal. The same term -- marriage -- is used for both, and that's confusing. What I was proposing was to separate them completely. I have no interest in a couple of adults wanting to solemnize their union through a religious service. All they need to do is find someone of that religion to perform the service. I have no interest or need for such a service myself, as I have no belief in a supreme being. As to the legal aspects, the process should be the same for all couples, both gay and straight. What's "close-minded" about that? Everybody gets treated the same. To answer your question directly, if two athiests want to get "married" in the religious sense (I know that doesn't make sense, but...) they would simply need to find a minister who would perform the service. More realistically, if two people want to be bound by the legal requirements, and gain from the legal benefits of what is also called marriage, then they go to the courthouse and pay a fee for a license.
 
Regarding the baby being hers or her teenage daughter's:

1. Have any of you ever been pregnant? Do you understand that numerous times a day both friends and strangers touch your stomach without your permission. I find it hard to believe that anyone in her position would be able to fake it.

2. Do you think that McCain's vetting process would have found this story, checked it out thoroughly and dismissed it? Of course they would.

3. If she really thought she could do this and not get caught, she would have to be very stupid and I don't think she is.

4. There is also the much more likely chance that a woman in her 40's would have a child with Downs Syndrome than a teenager.

5. Is this an issue that Democrats really want to pursue? They are much better at taking the high road on issues and I hope they do with this one.

6. If her daughter was pregnant, I think she could have used it to her advantage anyway. No abortion, take responsibility and keep the child. Everyone makes mistakes.



I am not a Republican, I do not agree with Palin's ideas, but can we just let this one go? If more information comes to light, fine. But I hope everyone leaves it alone.
 
So the gist of the argument seems to be: A young male politician with little/no <em>executive</em> experience is qualified to run for President but a young female politician with little/no <em>legislative</em> experience is not qualified to run for Vice-President. His inexperience isn't relevant because he has great ideas, communicates them well, and really wants to change "things". Her inexperience *is* relevant because she <strong>might</strong> have to assume the Presidency if her running mate dies. Essentially, it's okay to elect someone with no experience for the top job, but not okay to elect someone for the job just below that with a comparably light resume. Either in experience is an issue or it isn't. Double standards and hypocrisy will not serve this country any better in this election than they have in the workplace. Those engaging in it show themselves to be worthy of derision.



In my opinion, experience matters less than core beliefs and general philosophy. Clinton's first year was a fiasco but the remaining 7 were very successful from any objective standpoint, and he governed a small state for a decade before becoming President. In contrast, Bush had far less executive experience, had a very smooth transition and yet his entire Presidency has been overshadowed by the V.P. and cabinet he originally selected. The amount of experience one has running a government has little do with the philosophy they use to help form official policy, draft legislative proposals, or react to the problems that occur during their term of office. How they view the world and the role of government in that world has a far larger influence and yet still doesn't preclude them from reversing their course as current events unfold. Obama doesn't need experience to do a great job as President, but lack of it may result in problems that a more experienced politician would have avoided. McCain has decades more life experience than Obama; none of it may prove valuable if the economy is the largest issue of the next 4 years. Either way, the "experience issue" holds less weight with me than walking your talk.



As a human being and a voter, I find Obama to be very inspiration in both his views on social issues and his class in not dragging the campaigns into the mud. But I still can't understand why he ignored Hillary Clinton for V.P. considering how little difference their was in their views and plans, how many voters he would have gained for the ticket, and how much of their common agenda they could have accomplished with a Dem-controlled congress. With the selecton of Palin by McCain, the choice of Biden seems an even worse lapse in political judgement for a campaing wrapping itself in "change". On the other side, McCain's pick is being portrayed as last minute desperation but from an idealogical standpoint she is a carbon copy of McCain. This shows a consistentcy in decision-making that is inline with his core beliefs and philosophy. I don't find McCain inspirational and listening to one of his speeches can be painful for anyone who has to suffer through one. When I compare the two choices: one makes sense and one doesn't, the former is risky and the latter seems incongruent with their stated ideals, and both seem to be pandering to voters based on sex and race rather than actual ability.
 
Boy, what a topic!!



I am a politics junkie, and the blogs are going crazy over Palin. The Conservatives are fired up, and the Democrats are using arguments that show a lack of confidence. Her pregnancy - Are you kidding me!?!



My feeling is that she has definately fired up the Republican Base and closed the enthusiasm gap quite a bit.



In regards to experience, she has a lot more executive experience than Obama. She has been responsible for budget, payroll, a primary education system, a university system, infrastructure, etc, etc, etc.



Obama's supporters say he has run a campaign for 18 months, which is basically an argument that he has a more prolonged exposure in the national consciousness, which is not the same as experience. And please don't tell me that being responsible for a stadium show with Brittney's set designer is the same as being governor of any state.



She also has a "girl next door" type of quality about her. This isn't important because people will vote for that. It's important because people will listen to her, and give her a chance to tell her story.



She has also done a lot of the things that people want the next president to do - cut through the crap in a bipartisan way, and through the crooks out.
 
[quote author="Trooper" date=1220147821]bltsrv, I am quite aware of that. There is no way we can allow Reeps anywhere near the SCOTUS appointments.quote]



Trooper - as a police officer (right?) and Lawyerliz an attorney (presumably), what do you think the maximum penalty that ought to be imposed on a person who hits a pregnant woman (say 4 months pregnant) in the stomach with a baseball with an intent to kill the baby inside and that baby dies?
 
[quote author="BMP 309" date=1220264007][quote author="Trooper" date=1220147821]bltsrv, I am quite aware of that. There is no way we can allow Reeps anywhere near the SCOTUS appointments.</blockquote>


Trooper - as a police officer (right?) and Lawyerliz an attorney (presumably), what do you think the maximum penalty that ought to be imposed on a person who hits a pregnant woman (say 4 months pregnant) in the stomach with a baseball with an intent to kill the baby inside and that baby dies?</blockquote>


Am I prepared for what may be said to me in response to this post? Not really, but I'm going to post anyway. This fish is taking the bait.



...



I'm not in law enforcement, but that sounds like plain, old assault to me.



I'm not a doctor or in any form of health sciences, but as a woman I have given it a lot of thought. A fetus that has been developing for 4 months isn't a baby, much the same way that a caterpillar isn't a butterfly. I see it as still a part of the woman's body since it isn't an autonomous being and requires the mother/host to continue in any capacity. If that part of the woman's body were to be rendered useless/incapacitated/unable to function I see it as the same as her eye getting cut out. Where is the cut-off point? I honestly haven't decided that one yet. I always saw it as irrelevant to me because if I were in the position where I had to choose it wouldn't take me very long to decide one way or the other. Now if the amnio results came back with sucky news...not sure.



...



I'm taking a step outside the conversation for a moment to ponder: was Palin chosen, at least in part, to stir up the abortion debate, get people to passionately say mean things to one another, and bring up an issue to once again divide the country? If so, it's working. I'll never forget the day after the last major election when Jon Stewart said "It all came down to dudes kissing." Will this become this year's gay marriage debate?
 
[quote author="caycifish" date=1220273219]I'm taking a step outside the conversation for a moment to ponder: was Palin chosen, at least in part, to stir up the abortion debate, get people to passionately say mean things to one another, and bring up an issue to once again divide the country? If so, it's working. I'll never forget the day after the last major election when Jon Stewart said "It all came down to dudes kissing." Will this become this year's gay marriage debate?</blockquote>


It certainly seems that it has started off on that same foot, now doesn't it?
 
Cayci:



Four months is getting really close to the limit of viability outside the womb (although with a very high mortality rate), and science and medicine bring that down all of the time.



Graph:



I don't think that she was selected to stir up the abortion debate, or bring that to the fore. Abortion is a key issue to the base, but as long as they know the candidate is committed, they are willing to let that slide to the background a little.



I think she was selected to bring reform to the fore. There have been many focus groups done on the remaining undecideds, and the largest block in swing states is:



Women

White

Not traditional "pants suit" feminists (ie abortion is not the most important issue)

35-50 years old

Independent (don't vote party line, as opposed to registered independent).



Their chief economic anxiety is that they believe that special interests get all the special favors, and that offends them, especially when times are tough.



So if you need to reach out to these voters, who do you want? Sarah Palin.



I also think that they do want to capitalize on the experience issue. Whether you believe that Palin or Obama has more experience, the fact that the discussion is happening at all is bad for Obama.



One other thing to keep an eye on: The end of the convention means that McCain goes to public funds, which means Obama's broken pledge on campaign finance comes into play again. And remember the comment about bitter people clinging to guns and religion? It took place at a fundraiser. Expect McCain to point out the fact that Obama will sell blue collar folks down the river in order to impress his new millionaire friends. And who better to make the point than a blue collar woman who has guns and religion? And who will be Obama's largest contributers? Special interests - say hello the the Trial Lawyers!! Say hello to the corrupt unions that steal from their members (hello SEIU)!!
 
Hot off of the presses! Sarah Palin's 17 year old daughter is pregnant and will be getting married to the father. I'm sure everyone will have fun with this one. Conservatives are going to love this. I can see the arguments now, she's too busy to pay attention to her family and look what happened. Abortion is going to become a huge part of this story now.

http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2008/09/01/1318541.aspx
 
[quote author="irvine123" date=1220101201]What is the different between abort a child with down syndrome and abort a child with the sex you don't prefer?</blockquote>


Well, if you want to get technical, Down's syndrome is caused by a defect in the 21st chromosome, while gender is determined by the 23rd chromosome.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top