PDA

View Full Version : More-of-the-same-McCain picks Sarah Palin as running mate


Pages : 1 [2] 3 4

Quasimodo
01-09-08, 00:50
More fun political pics from the net:
http://i199.photobucket.com/albums/aa212/quasiraider2/000et712.gif
http://i199.photobucket.com/albums/aa212/quasiraider2/1219657192874.gif

Ward Dragon
01-09-08, 00:52
^ The party one is much better with Joker and crew :p That McCain pic scares me though :eek: :vlol:

violentblossom
01-09-08, 01:09
^ The party one is much better with Joker and crew :p That McCain pic scares me though :eek: :vlol:

yes, that is frightening.

i like that Zoolander jeep one, tho.

Tombreaper
01-09-08, 02:17
My vote goes to the party jeep!

That mcCain pic :yik: that's EVIL!

Draco
01-09-08, 05:40
What about school shootings? It's difficult to injure/kill lots of people with close-quarters weapons like knives.

Ah yes, because guns are the only way to kill a bunch of people in an enclosed area. Someone should tell the suicide bombers.

Yes.

Then I hope you are never in a place to make that decision. I personally wouldn't hesitate, it would be the human every time (not assuming other circumstances are present of course).

Geck-o-Lizard
01-09-08, 09:23
Ah yes, because guns are the only way to kill a bunch of people in an enclosed area. Someone should tell the suicide bombers.

...what? Since when were concealed BOMBS socially acceptable in the US?

Mad Tony
01-09-08, 09:30
...what? Since when were concealed BOMBS socially acceptable in the US?Draco never said that. He was just responding to you comment and explaining how it's not neccessarily that difficult to kill/injure lots of people without a gun in a school.

Geck-o-Lizard
01-09-08, 09:51
Suicide bombers aren't a problem in the US. :confused:

I mean if we're thinking up any possible way of killing a large number of people in an enclosed building, let's throw nerve gas, ebola and powdered uranium in there too, but people don't use these things because they're not as readily accessable as a handgun or kitchen knife. Add handguns to the first list, and you only need to be concerned about slashers.

Goose
01-09-08, 10:07
Suicide bombers aren't a problem in the US. :confused:

I mean if we're thinking up any possible way of killing a large number of people in an enclosed building, let's throw nerve gas, ebola and powdered uranium in there too, but people don't use these things because they're not as readily accessable as a handgun or kitchen knife. Add handguns to the first list, and you only need to be concerned about slashers.

Tell that to those who died on 7/7.

Bustus
01-09-08, 10:54
Oh my. Politics.

If I was American, I'd vote for Obama. But I'll leave it at that.

I'll gladly jump into the abortion debate though. The first thing that bothers me about it is when people start calling each other "anti-life" or "anti-choice". Makes it sound like the opposition intends to be killers or tyrants and enjoys it. That aside, I can't fathom how anyone can be completely against abortion as an option. Pregnancy can be a blessing, for sure, but it can also be a curse. A life-destroying one at that, occasionally resulting in the death of the fetus, the woman or even both if abortion isn't available, which is another reason why I dislike "pro-life".

When I say that, whichever anti-abortionist I'm arguing with tends to reply with "what about pro-choice? The fetus doesn't get a choice!"

Go ahead, ask the damned fetus. Oh wait, it's incapable of making a choice. My mistake.

Making abortions illegal would have a very predictable effect. You see, abortion is mainly the choice of women who really don't want to be pregnant. Women who really don't want to be pregnant won't let abortions not being legal stop them. There are other methods, they're just more likely to have unwanted consequences, up to and including the death of the woman. This is what illegalizing abortions would result in - Those who actually need that choice will suffer.

As for abortion being murder... Both sides of that argument seem to boil down to who can interpret scientific articles more literally. I can understand the problem in the case of late-term abortion, because the fetus is much more developed, and from what I recall, it can feel pain. In any case, whether or not abortion is murder is very subjective. It's completely reasonable to say that life starts at conception. It's also completely reasonable to say that life starts at birth. Hence the problem. Biologically, our bodies start to develop at conception, but the time between conception and birth is in effect just a preparation period, like a steak in an oven.

In ANY case, the life of the woman should come before the life of the fetus, if that's what it comes down to.

Mad Tony
01-09-08, 10:59
In ANY case, the life of the woman should come before the life of the fetus, if that's what it comes down to.And why is that? They're both living humans. Yeah, one's a lot more developed than the other but that doesn't make it more valuable. That's like saying the life of a 10 year old comes before the life of a 1 month old baby.

Bustus
01-09-08, 11:07
Because one has a consciousness, a history, ambitions, friends and family? A life? Because one might cry and beg you not to when you tell her you're going to let her die to make sure the fetus lives?

Note the difference between what I said and your example - The 1 month old baby has already been born.

Mad Tony
01-09-08, 11:08
Because one has a consciousness, a history, ambitions, friends and family? A life?

Note the difference between what I said and your example - The 1 month old baby has already been born.But both of them are still living human beings.

Bustus
01-09-08, 11:14
But both of them are still living human beings.

Hence why the ideal scenario is that they both survive. That just isn't always possible.

Elysia
01-09-08, 11:25
And why is that? They're both living humans. Yeah, one's a lot more developed than the other but that doesn't make it more valuable. That's like saying the life of a 10 year old comes before the life of a 1 month old baby.
Sorry, Ben... but even as a pregnant woman, I cannot agree with that one bit - it is totally and utterly different, like comparing apples to oranges.

I tend to stay out of the whole 'pro life / pro choice arguments, because I have very strong views when it comes to who has the right moralise over what a pregnant woman does with her body and who doesn't. Simply put - if you've never been through it, then you cannot, on any level, know what it is like. And if you cannot know what it is like, then you have absolutely no right whatsoever to judge someone who DOES know what it is like, hence the reason why, although I find the idea of abortion distasteful and I wish it wasn't needed, I have always supported the right of the woman involved to choose.

I can now tell you, first hand, that pregnancy is not 'feeling a bit tired and possibly a bit sick for the first few weeks, getting a bit fatter for 9 months and then having a kid'. The way people go on about carrying the child for 9 months and then giving it up if you don't want it just screams utter ignorance of what a woman goes through during pregnancy. For some women, it is a great time (and but even then, they have problems - a friend of mine has had a very easy pregnancy compared to me, but she still has problems) - for some, however it is absolutely hellish, physically, emotionally AND mentally. I personally am NOT having an easy pregnancy - I have actually been very ill indeed, to the point where I was incredibly worried there was something seriously wrong with either me or my baby (there isn't, thank goodness - I'm just having a hard time) - and it is hard enough to go through this willingly, let alone at the result of, for an example, an attack; to make a woman go through 9 months of this after a rape because your morals insist that is the case is tantamount to torture, simple as that. Personally, I am against women using abortion as a way to get rid of a 'mistake', but the world isn't as cut and dried as that, as I have found out. One of the most frightening things in this entire world is waiting for test results to be told whether your baby is healthy or not, or whether they have such appalling problems that mean they won't survive birth, or if they do, only for a few weeks - in these cases, women are actually advised to terminate, because birth is a very dangerous, very stressful thing for a woman to go through (women die, even in our nice, well equipped hospitals - simple as that - and if it is a choice between saving the mother or saving the child, health professionals usually choose the mother, unless she is too far gone). No woman makes the decision lightly - from the moment you find out you are pregnant, you are fully aware of what you carry inside you - and for people to basically infer that that it is an easy choice made to get you out of a difficult situation sicken me to the very core in their ignorance.

No one should judge nor condemn a woman for having to make that choice, not before weighing up each and every single individual case. I didn't announce my pregnancy here publicly until I had had my first scan, just in case I miscarried or was forced to make the terrible decision as to whether I wanted to terminate or not. I am due another, more detailed scan in the next couple of weeks to check for further developmental problems that would lead to my baby not surviving... and until you have *any* idea what that is like - how scared, vulnerable and worried I felt - then sorry; you have no clue.

Be pro life. Be pro choice. Than is your decision. But unless you've been there - no one has the right to moralise at and judge the women who make the awful decision to have a termination.

Btw - universal 'you' through out. I will also not be getting involved in any arguments regarding this topic, because in my current state, I have to keep my blood pressure down...

Geck-o-Lizard
01-09-08, 12:54
Tell that to those who died on 7/7.

History of gun violence in US schools, courtesy of bbc.co.uk:
October 2007: A teenage gunman reportedly shoots and wounds five people at a high school in Cleveland, Ohio, before killing himself.

April 2007: At least 32 people are killed in two shooting incidents in the campus of Virginia Tech university in Virginia.

October 2006: A 32-year-old gunman shoots dead at least five girls at an Amish school in Pennsylvania, before killing himself

September 2006: Gunman in Colorado shoots and fatally wounds a teenage schoolgirl, then kills himself; two days later a teenager kills the headteacher of a school in Cazenovia, Wisconsin

November 2005: Student in Tennessee shoots dead an assistant principal and wounds two other administrators

March 2005: Minnesota schoolboy kills nine, then shoots himself

May 2004: Four people injured in shooting at a school in Maryland

April 2003: Teenager shoots dead head-teacher at a Pennsylvania school, then kills himself

March 2001: Pupil opens fire at a school in California, killing two students

February 2000: Six-year-old girl shot dead by classmate in Michigan

November 1999: Thirteen-year-old girl shot dead by a classmate in New Mexico

May 1999: Student injures six pupils in shoot-out in Georgia

April 1999: Two teenagers shoot dead 12 students and a teacher before killing themselves at Columbine School in Colorado

June 1998: Two adults hurt in shooting by teenage student at high school in Virginia

May 1998: Fifteen-year-old boy shoots himself in the head after taking a girl hostage

May 1998: Fifteen-year-old shoots dead two students in school cafeteria in Oregon

April 1998: Fourteen-year-old shoots dead a teacher and wounds two students in Pennsylvania

March 1998: Two boys, 11 and 13, kill four girls and a teacher in Arkansas

December 1997: Fourteen-year-old boy kills three students in Kentucky

October 1997: Sixteen-year-old boy stabs mother, then shoots dead two students at school in Mississippi, injuring several others

History of suicide bomb incidents in UK:
June 2007: Two terrorists attempt to set off carbombs in London but fail. Same two terrorists drive a burning Jeep into Glasgow Airport the next day, kill no-one, get kicked in the face by a Scotsman, and burn themselves to death.

July 2005: Four suicide bombers kill 52 victims in London in a politically motivated attack. Two weeks later, four bombs in London fail to explode.

petujaymz
01-09-08, 13:57
Maybe I'm stating the obvious here, but I can't help feeling that if Hillary hadn't gone for the Democrat nomination Sarah Palin wouldn't be McCain's running mate.

:wve:

Goose
01-09-08, 14:05
[i]History of suicide bomb incidents in UK:
June 2007: Two terrorists attempt to set off carbombs in London but fail. Same two terrorists drive a burning Jeep into Glasgow Airport the next day, kill no-one, get kicked in the face by a Scotsman, and burn themselves to death.

July 2005: Four suicide bombers kill 52 victims in London in a politically motivated attack. Two weeks later, four bombs in London fail to explode.

you dont need to strap a bomb to yourself to kill people, so make that 'A History of bombings in the UK' and you have:

1970s
1971 12 January: Two bombs explode at the house of government minister Robert Carr. This attack was one of 25 carried out by the Angry Brigade between August 1970 and August 1971. The Bomb Squad was established at Scotland Yard in January 1971 to target the group, and they were apprehended in August of that year.
1971 31 October: A bomb explodes in the Post Office Tower in London causing extensive damage but no injuries. The "Kilburn Battalion" of the IRA claimed responsibility for the explosion.
1972 22 February: The Official Irish Republican Army kills seven civilians in the Aldershot bombing.
1972 19 September: The group Black September post a letter bomb to the Israeli embassy in London killing an Israeli diplomat.
1973 10 September: The Provisional IRA set off bombs at London's King's Cross Station and Euston Station injuring 21 people.
1974 4 February: Eight Soldiers and 4 civilians are killed by the Provisional IRA in the M62 Coach Bombing.
1974 17 June: The Provisional IRA plant a bomb which explodes at the Houses of Parliament, causing extensive damage and injuring 11 people.
1974 5 October: Guildford pub bombing by the Provisional IRA leaves 4 off duty soldiers and a civilian dead and 44 injured.
1974 22 October: A bomb planted by the Provisional IRA explodes in London injuring 3 people.
1974 21 November: The Birmingham pub bombings, 21 killed and 182 injured by Provisional IRA bombs.
1979 30 March: Airey Neave killed when a car bomb exploded under his car as he drove out of the Palace of Westminster car park. The Irish National Liberation Army (INLA) claimed responsibility for the killing.
1980s
1980 30 April: The Iranian Embassy Siege where a six-man terrorist team held the building for six days until the hostages were rescued by a raid by the SAS which was broadcast live on TV.
1982 20 July: The Hyde Park and Regents Park bombings in London by the IRA kill eleven members of the Household Cavalry and the Royal Green Jackets.
1982, 30 November: A group called the Animal Rights Militia sent a letter bomb to Margaret Thatcher at 10 Downing Street, the device exploded injuring one person.
1983, 17 December: Harrods was bombed by the IRA. Six are killed (including three police officers) and 90 wounded during Christmas shopping at the West London department store. (See 17 December 1983 Harrods bombing)
1984 12 October: Brighton hotel bombing, 5 killed and several injured in an attempt by the IRA to kill Margaret Thatcher.
1988 21 December: Pan Am Flight 103 (Lockerbie) blown up by a bomb in a suitcase while in flight over Scotland after taking off from Heathrow. 270 were killed.
1989 22 September: Deal barracks bombing: Eleven Royal Marines bandsmen are killed and 22 injured when base in Deal, Kent, is bombed by the IRA.

1990s
1990 May 16: Wembley IRA detonate a bomb underneath a minibus killing Sgt Charles Chapman (The Queen's Regiment) and injuring another soldier.
1990 June 1: Lichfield City railway station 1 solder is killed and 2 are injured in a shooting by the Provisional Irish Republican Army
1990 20 July: The IRA detonate a bomb at the London Stock Exchange causing damage to the building. Nobody was injured in the blast.
1990 30 July: Ian Gow MP killed by a car bomb planted by the IRA while at his home in Sussex.
1991, 7 February: The IRA launched three mortar shells into the back garden of 10 Downing Street.
1991 February 18: A bomb explodes at Victoria Station. One man is killed and 38 people injured.
1992 February 28, 1992: A bomb explodes at London Bridge station injuring 29 people.
1992 April 10: A large bomb explodes in St Mary Axe in the City of London. The bomb was contained in a large white truck and consisted of a fertilizer device wrapped with a detonation cord made from Semtex. It killed three people: Paul Butt, 29, Baltic Exchange employee Thomas Casey, 49, and 15-year old Danielle Carter. The bomb also caused damage to surrounding buildings, many of which were also badly damaged by the Bishopsgate bombing the following year. The bomb caused £800 million worth of damage, £200 million more than the total damaged caused by the 10,000 explosions that had occurred during the Troubles in Northern Ireland up to that point.
1992 25 August: The IRA plant three fire bombs in Shrewsbury, Shropshire. Bombs were placed in Shoplatch, The Charles Darwin Centre and Shrewsbury Castle. The latter causing the most damage as the castle housed the Shropshire Regimental Museum and many priceless historical aritifacts were lost and damaged by fire and smoke. No fatalities or injuries were recorded.
1992 October 12: A device explodes in the gents' toilet of the Sussex Arms public house in Covent Garden killing one person and injuring four others.
1992 16 November: IRA plants a bomb at the Canary Wharf, but is spotted by security guards. The bomb is deactivated safely.
1992 3 December: The IRA exploded two bombs in central Manchester, injuring 65 people.
1993, 20 March: Warrington bomb attacks. The first attack, on a gasworks, created a huge fireball but no casualties, but the second attack on Bridge Street killed two children and injured many other people. The attacks were conducted by the IRA.
1993 April 24: IRA detonate a huge truck bomb in the City of London at Bishopsgate, It killed journalist Ed Henty, injured over 40 people, and causing approximately £1 billion worth of damage,[12] including the destruction of St Ethelburga's church, and serious damage to Liverpool St. Tube Station. Police had received a coded warning, but were still evacuating the area at the time of the explosion. The insurance payments required were so enormous, that Lloyd's of London almost went bankrupt under the strain, and there was a crisis in the London insurance market. The area had already suffered damage from the Baltic Exchange bombing the year before. (see 1993 Bishopsgate bombing)
1996, 9 February 1996: The IRA bombs the South Quay area of London, killing two people. (see 1996 Docklands bombing)
1996 15 June: The Manchester bombing when the IRA detonated a 1500 kg bomb which destroyed the Arndale shopping centre and injured 206 people.
1996 February 15: A 5 lb bomb placed in a telephone box is disarmed by Police on the Charing Cross Road.
1996 February 18: An improvised high explosive device detonates prematurely on a bus travelling along Aldwych in central London, killing Edward O'Brien, the IRA operative transporting the device and injuring eight others.
1999, 17 April, 24 April, 30 April: David Copeland set off three nail bombs in London targeting the black, Bangladeshi and gay communities respectively, killing 3 and injuring 129. Convicted of murder on 30 June 2000.
Refer also to the list of IRA terrorist incidents presented to Parliament between 1980 and 1994, listed halfway down the page here

2000-present
2000 1 June: Bomb explodes on Hammersmith Bridge
2000 20 September: RPG attack SIS Building
2001 4 March: A car bomb explodes outside the BBC's main news centre in London. One London Underground worker suffered deep cuts to his eye from flying glass and some damage was caused to the front of the building. (See 4 March 2001 BBC bombing)
2001 16 April: Hendon post office bombed
2001 6 May: The Real IRA detonate a bomb in a London postal sorting office. One person was injured.
2001, 3 August: The last Real IRA bomb, as of June 2008, in Britain explodes in Ealing, West London, injuring seven people. (See 3 August 2001 Ealing bombing)
2001, 4 November: Car bomb explodes in Birmingham
2005 7 July: The 7 July 2005 London bombings conducted by four separate suicide bombers, killing 56 people and injuring 700.
2007 January - February: The 2007 United Kingdom letter bombs
2007 30 June: 2007 Glasgow International Airport attack
2008 22 May: 22 May 2008 Exeter Bombing injuring only the perpetrator
June 2007: Two terrorists attempt to set off carbombs in London but fail. Same two terrorists drive a burning Jeep into Glasgow Airport the next day, kill no-one, get kicked in the face by a Scotsman, and burn themselves to death.
July 2005: Four suicide bombers kill 52 victims in London in a politically motivated attack. Two weeks later, four bombs in London fail to explode.


I mean if we're thinking up any possible way of killing a large number of people in an enclosed building, let's throw nerve gas, ebola and powdered uranium in there too, but people don't use these things because they're not as readily accessable...


Do you still believe bombs are not 'accessable'? The list would be longer if i added all the terrorist bomb attacks in northern ireland aswell.

Kiwi..
01-09-08, 14:12
I'm not american, and not old enough to vote, but I really don't like Sarah Palin. Ore at least not her ideas. (:

She is against free abortion, but it's okay to have guns.
Sure, because those poor kids killed at school will be born again because other women can't get an abortion.. xp
Okay, I didn't mean that.. Just kidden... But I really don't agree with her. :)
We had the same talk in my class today, and most of us didn't agree with her.. But it's okay she has her own ideals. (:

Quasimodo
01-09-08, 15:43
Go ahead, ask the damned fetus. Oh wait, it's incapable of making a choice. My mistake.



Just because someone isn't capable of saying whether they want to live or not doesn't mean their life isn't worth consideration.

Draco
01-09-08, 15:51
Suicide bombers aren't a problem in the US. :confused:

I mean if we're thinking up any possible way of killing a large number of people in an enclosed building, let's throw nerve gas, ebola and powdered uranium in there too, but people don't use these things because they're not as readily accessable as a handgun or kitchen knife. Add handguns to the first list, and you only need to be concerned about slashers.

What exactly is your point? That guns should be taken away from everyone because some people use them irresponsibly?

Hell we should start with automobiles, those kill more people than domestic guns ever have.

Melonie Tomb Raider
01-09-08, 15:53
Just because someone isn't capable of saying whether they want to live or not doesn't mean their life isn't worth consideration.

Exactly.

Infants aren't capable of saying whether they want to live or not either, they don't understand, so does that make it ok to kill children as long as they are under the age of 3? Seriously, the whole topic is something you would think would be obvious, but somehow people try to find an argument about it, which blows my mind, because I don't understand how anyone could possibly think killing a baby is ok. That's just sickening.

Goose
01-09-08, 16:00
Exactly.

Infants aren't capable of saying whether they want to live or not either, they don't understand, so does that make it ok to kill children as long as they are under the age of 3? Seriously, the whole topic is something you would think would be obvious, but somehow people try to find an argument about it, which blows my mind, because I don't understand how anyone could possibly think killing a baby is ok. That's just sickening.

I dont see why its so hard to wear a condom and pop a pill.

Melonie Tomb Raider
01-09-08, 16:02
I dont see why its so hard to wear a condom and pop a pill.

Well yeah, that too, but if people don't, that really doesn't warrant killing a baby.

Draco
01-09-08, 16:05
I dont see why its so hard to wear a condom and pop a pill.

I don't see why consequences for actions or lack thereof shouldn't be handled appropriately.

Elysia
01-09-08, 16:16
Exactly.

Infants aren't capable of saying whether they want to live or not either, they don't understand, so does that make it ok to kill children as long as they are under the age of 3? Seriously, the whole topic is something you would think would be obvious, but somehow people try to find an argument about it, which blows my mind, because I don't understand how anyone could possibly think killing a baby is ok. That's just sickening.

So... when you find yourself pregnant, go for your scan and are told 'sorry, your baby is so badly deformed (for example, some unborn children have half their skulls or half their internal organs missing) that it probably won't survive birth, and will only have a few weeks to live at the most if it does survive - we advise a termination' - are you going to martyr yourself and put your and your partner through agony, both mentally, emotionally and physically, to your cause? Birth can be *dangerous* - it isn't some walk in the park! Women aren't offered prenatal scans so they can go 'oooh, coo-ee, baby!' - they're given them to make sure their kid is safe, sound and fine, and they are bloody scary. I'm having my 20 week 'check for defects, deformities and other possibly life threatening conditions' scan very soon, and whilst I am looking forward to seeing my baby again, I am also absolutely terrified they are going to find something seriously and irreversibly wrong with him or her.

Not all terminations are because some two bit tart opened her legs and accidentally got pregnant. There are *a lot* of grey areas that a lot of people conveniently choose to either ignore, or simply don't know about because they've never been through it themselves. Sometimes, abortions happen because it is, sadly, for the best - should these poor women be judged and vilified because nature (or, if you like, God) has played such a cruel, cruel trick on them? Should they be made to suffer unduly because a bunch of other people say they should?

Bustus
01-09-08, 16:41
Seriously, the whole topic is something you would think would be obvious, but somehow people try to find an argument about it, which blows my mind, because I don't understand how anyone could possibly think killing a baby is ok. That's just sickening.

That is exactly where it isn't obvious. Note how you'll have a hard time trying to find a pro-abortionist that isn't opposed to killing born children. This is exactly where the line gets fuzzy - Is it murder or not to dispose of an unborn fetus? As far as I know, there's no objective answer. There are two subjective takes on the issue: 1) "A fetus is technically a human from conception onwards, and as such killing it in any way is wrong", and 2) "In its earlier stages, a fetus doesn't have a conscious and is barely developed. As a potential human being, it's fine to dispose of it, which is pain-free". Add the major problems an unwanted pregnancy can cause, complicating the issue further. That's why it's hard to make any real case for or against it that isn't mostly an opinion, and also why it should remain a legal option.

Mind you, I don't advocate abortion out of convenience. On the other hand, I wouldn't stand in the way of someone who wants to do that either.

It's somewhat similar to why I find the whole gay marriage debate redundant - Whether or not homosexuality is "moral" is nothing but a matter of opinion. There can be nothing objectively wrong or immoral about something that doesn't harm anyone, and thus banning it is completely irrational. I compare it to banning apples because the majority of a population doesn't like apples.

Of course, the difference is that in the case of abortion, the fetus is technically harmed, which is what makes it so much more complicated. It probably isn't that similar really, I just felt like bringing it up. The fact that gay marriage is still up there as one of the most debated issues shakes my faith in humanity. We really will need to work hard to recover from the massive damage that organized religion has caused to us.

Sorry, I always go into rant-mode about unnecessary issues.

Geck-o-Lizard
01-09-08, 17:02
you dont need to strap a bomb to yourself to kill people, so make that 'A History of bombings in the UK' and you have:

[list]

Do you still believe bombs are not 'accessable'? The list would be longer if i added all the terrorist bomb attacks in northern ireland aswell.

That's almost exclusively a list of paramilitary IRA attacks, not civilian violence. My point is thus: if you provide the general public with access to lethal weapons, disturbed individuals will use them for tragic purposes. In the UK, the general public does not have ready access to explosives, which is why nearly every entry on that list has been attributed to the IRA and not to disgruntled students or office workers.

I'm not trying to say that banning weapons makes it impossible to get them. If you have the means, such as membership in a paramilitary organisation, you'll get them anyway. I'm just bemused at how anyone can think that letting everyone have guns makes you safer.

Goose
01-09-08, 17:08
That's almost exclusively a list of paramilitary IRA attacks, not civilian violence. My point is thus: if you provide the general public with access to lethal weapons, disturbed individuals will use them for tragic purposes. In the UK, the general public does not have ready access to explosives, which is why nearly every entry on that list has been attributed to the IRA and not to disgruntled students or office workers.

I'm not trying to say that banning weapons makes it impossible to get them. If you have the means, such as membership in a paramilitary organisation, you'll get them anyway. I'm just bemused at how anyone can think that letting everyone have guns makes you safer.

The IRA may have called themselves an army, but they were just civilians playing soldiers. Why do you think every IRA member to die was a "murder"?

What they did can be done by anyone.

Geck-o-Lizard
01-09-08, 17:09
Not by people working alone.

Draco
01-09-08, 17:18
That's almost exclusively a list of paramilitary IRA attacks, not civilian violence. My point is thus: if you provide the general public with access to lethal weapons, disturbed individuals will use them for tragic purposes. In the UK, the general public does not have ready access to explosives, which is why nearly every entry on that list has been attributed to the IRA and not to disgruntled students or office workers.

I'm not trying to say that banning weapons makes it impossible to get them. If you have the means, such as membership in a paramilitary organisation, you'll get them anyway. I'm just bemused at how anyone can think that letting everyone have guns makes you safer.

You can make a bomb with stuff from under your kitchen sink...

TR3LaraCroft
01-09-08, 17:35
Lets take a look at how life begins shall we:
http://www.abortionfacts.com/literature/literature_9438MS.asp

Quote from: "Pro-Choice 1990: Skeletons in the Closet"

"I remember an experience as a resident on a hysterotomy. I remember seeing the baby move underneath the sack of membranes, as the cesarean incision was made, before the doctor broke the water. The thought came to me, "My God, that's a person" Then he broke the water. And when he broke the water, it was like I had a pain in my heart, just like when I saw that first suction abortion. And t hen he delivered the baby,. and I couldn't touch it.. I wasn't much of an assistant. I just stood there, and the reality of what was doing on finally began to seep into my calloused brain and heart. They took that little baby that was making little sounds and moving and kicking, and set it on that table in a cold, stainless steel bowl. Every time I would look over while we were repairing the incision in uterus and finishing the Caesarean, I would see that little person moving in that bowl. And it kicked and moved less and less, of course, as time went on. I can remember going over and looking at the baby when we were done with the surgery and the baby was still alive. You could see the chest was moving and the heart was beating, and the baby would try to take a little breath, and it really hurt inside, and it began to educate me as to what abortion really was."
quoted in "Pro-Choice 1990: Skeletons in the Closet"
-------

For those of you who are Pro-"choice", can I ask you what your thoughts are on partial birth abortion?

I wanted to post what they do for partial birth abortion, Is that alright Mods?
website link:
http://www.abortionfacts.com/partial_birth/partial_birth.asp


ARE THEY PERFORMED ONLY ON SEVERELY DEFORMED BABIES?

That is what the abortion industry would like you to believe. But Dr. Haskell said in a tape recorded interview with the AMA’s American Medical News: "...and I’ll be quite frank: most of my abortions are elective (not medically necessary) in that 20-24 week range ... In my particular case, probably 20% are for genetic reasons. And the other 80% are purely elective." An article in the L.A. Times (8/28/96) listed some of the medical reasons for this type of abortion. They included cleft palates, cystic hygroma, (both easily corrected problems) and cystic fibrosis. The medical conditions present in the mother that warranted this type of abortion were, "depression, chicken pox, diabetes, vomiting ..." In other words, even those partial birth abortions that are done for the "health of the mother" or because of a "defective fetus" are often performed for minor, easily correctable conditions. Dr. C. Everett Coop, former U.S. Surgeon General, stated, "... in no way can I twist my mind to see that the late-term abortion as described is a medical necessity for the mother. It certainly can’t be a necessity for the baby."
IS THIS TYPE OF ABORTION EVER DONE ON THIRD TRIMESTER BABIES?

Yes. While most babies are in their 20th to 24th week when aborted in this manner, babies are aborted as late as the ninth month! This was admitted to by abortionist Dr. McMahon who, in 1995, submitted to the House Judiciary Constitution Subcommittee a graph and explanation that showed he aborted healthy babies even in the third trimester!

As disturbing as this sounds, these are the facts. In this country medical doctors are partially delivering babies and then killing them. These babies are inches from being born. Many could be born and placed directly in the loving arms of childless couples for adoption. Instead, they are cruelly killed. Some call this abortion. No matter what you call it, you cannot alter the reality - 4 more inches out of the womb and this act would be called murder.

----------

Before any of you defend this "Right" , please read the information on what you are actually supporting.

Drone
01-09-08, 17:45
Infants aren't capable of saying whether they want to live or not either, they don't understand, so does that make it ok to kill children as long as they are under the age of 3? Seriously, the whole topic is something you would think would be obvious, but somehow people try to find an argument about it, which blows my mind, because I don't understand how anyone could possibly think killing a baby is ok. That's just sickening.

well said :tmb:

life is life. it's the same if anyone says that 3 years old deserves to live more than 2 years old. It's just a question of time (age). If human is "inside" it doesn't mean that he/she is not human and doesn't deserve to live

Elysia
01-09-08, 17:48
^^ ... and that is what the pro-lifers would have you believe.

Please - I am going through this RIGHT NOW. That is, as we speak - I am currently 20 weeks and 2 days pregnant. I am having / have had scans and very frank discussions with doctors and my midwife about all eventualities, as do all pregnant women. Luckily, so far, everything for me seems to be okay. Doctors do not recommend terminations for things such as Downs or spina bifida - they will support you through your choice and act upon what you decide in an impartial manner. They only recommend terminations when things are so bad that it would be cruel - on the baby AND the mother - for the pregnancy to go ahead.

The terminating of cleft palate babies is definitely frowned upon here. Other conditions, such as Downs etc, are treated more gently. I personally don't know what I would do if I was told I had a severe downs child or one with severe spina bifida right now... I really don't. But that's not the point. The point is - IT IS MY CHOICE, to be made with my husband, and ABSOLUTELY no one else's. You can judge me, cluck your tongue and get outraged all you like - but this is why I am pro choice, because what a woman does with her body is her own business.

Geck-o-Lizard
01-09-08, 17:51
Abortion - I support abortion/"choice" within the first eight weeks. After that, it's too far gone unless it's life-threatening to either mother or child to continue.

You can make a bomb with stuff from under your kitchen sink...
Lol, yes, you can. But you need to know how, and you need to be skilled enough at practical chemistry that you don't blow your hands off in the attempt. :P

Drone
01-09-08, 17:56
^^ ... and that is what the pro-lifers would have you believe.

Please - I am going through this RIGHT NOW. That is, as we speak - I am currently 20 weeks and 2 days pregnant. I am having / have had scans and very frank discussions with doctors and my midwife about all eventualities, as do all pregnant women. Luckily, so far, everything for me seems to be okay. Doctors do not recommend terminations for things such as Downs or spina bifida - they will support you through your choice and act upon what you decide in an impartial manner. They only recommend terminations when things are so bad that it would be cruel - on the baby AND the mother - for the pregnancy to go ahead.

The terminating of cleft palate babies is definitely frowned upon here. Other conditions, such as Downs etc, are treated more gently. I personally don't know what I would do if I was told I had a severe downs child or one with severe spina bifida right now... I really don't. But that's not the point. The point is - IT IS MY CHOICE, to be made with my husband, and ABSOLUTELY no one else's. You can judge me, cluck your tongue and get outraged all you like - but this is why I am pro choice, because what a woman does with her body is her own business.


first of all I wish everything goes fine with you and your baby :)

now my point:

if woman knows that her baby will be healthy and she will be ok after the birth but she decides to abort it coz of her career or other reasons it doesn't deserve any respect

Elysia
01-09-08, 18:03
Abortion - I support abortion/"choice" within the first eight weeks. After that, it's too far gone unless it's life-threatening to either mother or child to continue.

I am basically with you here, Grace :).

Funnily enough, I actually so think that abortion is often treated 'lightly' by some. I would actually go as far as to say that it shouldn't really be offered to clean up the mess of, for example, a drunken one night stand. But I do support choice, because there are so many grey areas to be taken into consideration - the world isn't split into loving mothers and selfish harlots, and so women shouldn't be treated accordingly. In principle, of course I am against the killing of unborn children (I don't think there is a person in this planet that would actually be actively for it!), but when the world is such a complicated place, saying a blanket 'it's wrong and shouldn't be allowed' just doesn't cut it.

(For the record - even though I haven't even met this child yet (I don't even know if it a boy or a girl, and I don't want to know! :p), I already love it more than I ever thought possible, and would never, ever get rid of it on a 'whim'. Discussing this is actually quite distressing for me (I really hate thinking about the worst of the worst case scenarios), but I am a realist who thinks it is important for people to realise that not everything in this situation is as cut and dried as they may previously had thought, and that some women only deserve our support and understanding, not our contempt and condemnation).

Quasimodo
01-09-08, 18:07
Abortion - I support abortion/"choice" within the first eight weeks. After that, it's too far gone unless it's life-threatening to either mother or child to continue.

On the topic of unwanted pregnancies...
To use being wanted by someone as a measure of whether a human life is allowed to live is a frightening concept. Its converse logically awaits us — that the unwanted can be eliminated. Don’t forget, Hitler’s Germany was ideal for wanted Aryans.

Since when does anyone’s right to live depend upon someone else wanting them?

"Every Child a Wanted Child" should be completed with "and if not wanted, kill!" for that is exactly what that Planned Parenthood slogan means. To thus complete the sentence removes the mask from this misleading slogan and reveals it for the monstrous evil that it is. That certainly makes it sound different! Source (http://www.abortionfacts.com/online_books/love_them_both/why_cant_we_love_them_both_31.asp)

Dakaruch
01-09-08, 18:12
if woman knows that her baby will be healthy and she will be ok after the birth but she decides to abort it coz of her career or other reasons it doesn't deserve any respect

It is not up to you, or me to make that choice. It is up to that mother to do it.
To me, abortion is acceptable until the first 10 weeks. More than that, only if the fetus has any problems, any deformity. It is true that a fetus after a certain stage of development starts showing sentiments, and behaviours of a human being. Although it isn't fair for any parent to have to raise a child that is somewhat condemned to die in the first place.

I have people in my family that suffered this situation many years ago. They had 3 sons, and only one of them escaped death after an early age.
The first one died after a few weeks, then the second one only lived until he was 2/3 years old, and then the other one escaped and is now an adult. The thing is that the mother of these 3 child would have aborted if she was told.

It isn't easy to raise a child with severe problems, and these people should be supported in either of their choice, instead of saying that a life is a life, how bad it is going to be to everyone(parents and child).

Quasimodo
01-09-08, 18:16
It is not up to you, or me to make that choice. It is up to that mother to do it.
To me, abortion is acceptable until the first 10 weeks. More than that, only if the fetus has any problems, any deformity. It is true that a fetus after a certain stage of development starts showing sentiments, and behaviours of a human being. Although it isn't fair for any parent to have to raise a child that is somewhat condemned to die in the first place.

I have people in my family that suffered this situation many years ago. They had 3 sons, and only one of them escaped death after an early age.
The first one died after a few weeks, then the second one only lived until he was 2/3 years old, and then the other one escaped and is now an adult. The thing is that the mother of these 3 child would have aborted if she was told.

It isn't easy to raise a child with severe problems, and these people should be supported in either of their choice, instead of saying that a life is a life, how bad it is going to be to everyone(parents and child).

So it's understandable if someone wants to kill a person once they have become a burden?

Elysia
01-09-08, 18:21
It isn't easy to raise a child with severe problems, and these people should be supported in either of their choice, instead of saying that a life is a life, how bad it is going to be to everyone(parents and child).
:hug: Thank you, Nuno. It's a hard, emotive subject, and I can see why people on the outside (those who have not gone through it) might not be able to understand the reasoning behind such choices (and it does work both ways - my neighbour told me a dreadful story of how her boyfriend's mother has totally and utterly condemned a family friend for choosing NOT too abort her Downs child...), but that does not mean they deserve nothing but contempt - at the end of the day, it is no one else's choice but their own as to what they do, as with all things in this life.

Dakaruch
01-09-08, 18:24
So it's understandable if someone wants to kill a person once they have become a burden?


Have you ever had the contact with a child that born with half the vital organs, half it's brain, and other horrible things that happen with some pregnancies?

Yeah, and i suppose that you're also against assisted death to the individuals that ask for it right? Because life is important, even if you're bleeding by every hole in your body, or because you have a terminal disease that make you suffer in horrible pain. Because everyone deserves to live, even if it is a doomed life.

I've heard that crap of "it was what God wanted", "no one has the right to end others life" and things of the like, because when it comes to this, i believe that it would be better for such a life to end.

Elysia
01-09-08, 18:28
Quasi... please don't think I can't see where you are coming from, because I can... If you decide to have a child, I really, really, really hope you never, ever have to face the things the women who choose termination have to go through, but there is always a chance that this could indeed one day be you. Rather than getting on the moral high horse - for one second, put yourself in their shoes. You've got a child who is going to be severely disabled and probably won't survive a month, let alone a year (and will probably live in agony for the time it does have)... can you imagine having to make that decision? Having to go through that heartache, that absolute, crushing despair... surely, it is up to you what you choose, and not some stranger? Morals are fine and dandy, but sometimes... sometimes these things aren't black and white.

Drone
01-09-08, 18:32
Have you ever had the contact with a child that born with half the vital organs, half it's brain, and other horrible things that happen with some pregnancies?

Yeah, and i suppose that you're also against assisted death to the individuals that ask for it right? Because life is important, even if you're bleeding by every hole in your body, or because you have a terminal disease that make you suffer in horrible pain. Because everyone deserves to live, even if it is a doomed life.

I've heard that crap of "it was what God wanted", "no one has the right to end others life" and things of the like, because when it comes to this, i believe that it would be better for such a life to end.

so people who fought for their countries who fought for peace and lost their souls, organs, sight, mind, arms, legs etc dont' deserve to live either?


if that's the case then everyone should suicide rightnow. coz everyone will suffer, everyone will die etc. Nobody knows what happens tomorrow maybe one idiot will destroy the world tomorrow how can you know? maybe deadly virus will come tomorrow and kill all life on earth? why to live?

Quasimodo
01-09-08, 18:37
Quasi... please don't think I can't see where you are coming from, because I can... If you decide to have a child, I really, really, really hope you never, ever have to face the things the women who choose termination have to go through, but there is always a chance that this could indeed one day be you. Rather than getting on the moral high horse - for one second, put yourself in their shoes. You've got a child who is going to be severely disabled and probably won't survive a month, let alone a year (and will probably live in agony for the time it does have)... can you imagine having to make that decision? Having to go through that heartache, that absolute, crushing despair... surely, it is up to you what you choose, and not some stranger? Morals are fine and dandy, but sometimes... sometimes these things aren't black and white.

I don't think a child should be kept alive through artificial means if that only prolongs the suffering of the child. I actually agree with what you posted earlier about the abortion of cleft palate babies and downs babies not being necessary, etc. Those babies still have the potential of living a happy life.

Dakaruch
01-09-08, 18:57
so people who fought for their countries who fought for peace and lost their souls, organs, sight, mind, arms, legs etc dont' deserve to live either?


if that's the case then everyone should suicide rightnow. coz everyone will suffer, everyone will die etc. Nobody knows what happens tomorrow maybe one idiot will destroy the world tomorrow how can you know? maybe deadly virus will come tomorrow and kill all life on earth? why to live?


This is ridiculous.

I am talking about one thing, and you are talking about the opposite.
Look, to be born with half of your vital organs, will make you live, let's say, about 6 months of your life. Not to mention that a baby living in these conditions will spent most of his/her lifetime on hospital. Not to mention how horrible this is going to be to the child parents - physically, mentally and emotionally.

Once again i say that this is much more different than loosing members of your body, while working, fighting or pretty much anything you mentioned.

Your narrow way of viewing things like this, is what make euthanasia almost impossible in many countries, even when people slowly and painfully dying, ask for it over and over again. Do you think that someone should be obliged to live when they don't want it, or because that person can't do it by him/herself?
It's pathetic to think that way. ;)


Also, regarding that deadly virus... THAT'S IMPOSSIBLE. No virus can destroy an entire population! ;)

And with this i shall end my posting in this "discussion" :wve:

Draco
01-09-08, 19:02
Lol, yes, you can. But you need to know how, and you need to be skilled enough at practical chemistry that you don't blow your hands off in the attempt. :P

And the same type of person who would plan months and weeks ahead to shoot up a school wouldn't be able to figure out a bomb, especially given the amount of information readily available about them?

Drone
01-09-08, 19:02
yup I end it too with disagreeing with everything :wve:

Draco
01-09-08, 19:03
Also, regarding that deadly virus... THAT'S IMPOSSIBLE. No virus can destroy an entire population! ;)

Who says?

TR3LaraCroft
01-09-08, 19:07
.^^ ... and that is what the pro-lifers would have you believe.

Doctors do not recommend terminations for things such as Downs or spina bifida - they will support you through your choice and act upon what you decide in an impartial manner. They only recommend terminations when things are so bad that it would be cruel - on the baby AND the mother - for the pregnancy to go ahead.

The terminating of cleft palate babies is definitely frowned upon here. Other conditions, such as Downs etc, are treated more gently. I personally don't know what I would do if I was told I had a severe downs child or one with severe spina bifida right now... I really don't. But that's not the point. The point is - IT IS MY CHOICE, to be made with my husband, and ABSOLUTELY no one else's. You can judge me, cluck your tongue and get outraged all you like - but this is why I am pro choice, because what a woman does with her body is her own business.


Those are your veiws, but I strongly disagree.
It may be frowned upon there, but when you support it you support it everywhere. Which may not be handled the same way with the people you know. This is human life we are talking about. These are the facts about abortion. I am pro-life..and I don't believe it is anyones right to take a life. It's her body, and it's the baby's life.

I don't want to argue or for you to be over stressed. And I hope you have a very healthy happy baby.
I just wanted come on here and state the facts ..and my opinion. because like you my beliefs on this subject are strong..


Abortion - I support abortion/"choice" within the first eight weeks. After that, it's too far gone unless it's life-threatening to either mother or child to continue.



I am basically with you here, Grace :).


It is not up to you, or me to make that choice. It is up to that mother to do it.
To me, abortion is acceptable until the first 10 weeks. More than that, only if the fetus has any problems, any deformity. It is true that a fetus after a certain stage of development starts showing sentiments, and behaviours of a human being. .

Pro -Choice only until 8 -10 weeks?

The only thing that gets me is when you support the movement you support everything that goes along with it. Including Partial birth abortion. Wheather you agree with it or not.. so, if you only support abortion within the first 8 -10..how can you be pro -choice?

only certain choices? certain circumstances?

Geck-o-Lizard
01-09-08, 19:47
The only thing that gets me is when you support the movement you support everything that goes along with it. Including Partial birth abortion. Wheather you agree with it or not..

Um, no, you're completely mistaken. I don't have to support everything that goes along with some movement called "pro choice" to be in favour of giving women a choice in the matter.

Dakaruch
01-09-08, 20:16
Who says?

The scientific community! ;)

Even to the deadliest of virus, there is always someone in a population that is immune to the virus. Don't be fool enough to think that what you saw on Resident Evil, and I am Legend are faithful-to-reality movies. Ok?


Truly, some of this questions make me wonder if some of you ever studied Biology, or any other subject related with it.


@TR3 Lara Croft - I never said that i'm a pro-choice, or what other label you give to this issues.
To me all this labelling only make this issues look more political. I believe in what i said. You have another way of viewing it, then be my guest to show it here. Now don't ask me how can i be "pro-choice", when i never said that i'm a supporter of it. I'm not a person of extremes mind you, hence why i said that i support abortion to 8-10 weeks max, without any limitation, and after that only supported it with solid medical motives.

Mad Tony
01-09-08, 20:20
Even to the deadliest of virus, there is always someone in a population that is immune to the virus. Don't be fool enough to think that what you saw on Resident Evil, and I am Legend are faithful-to-reality movies. Ok?
Actually, there are people immune to the virus in I am Legend, so technically that is faithful to reality. That's not the point though, the point is we don't know everything. Some virus could come along and easily wipe us out. Yeah, the chances of it happening are next to nothing but it could still happen, regardless of what scientists say. We as a species don't know everything.

Sorry for going off-topic, just wanted to clear this up.

Draco
01-09-08, 20:23
The scientific community! ;)

Even to the deadliest of virus, there is always someone in a population that is immune to the virus. Don't be fool enough to think that what you saw on Resident Evil, and I am Legend are faithful-to-reality movies. Ok?


Truly, some of this questions make me wonder if some of you ever studied Biology, or any other subject related with it.

Who says the virus has to be natural? Are you saying even an engineered virus would find someone who could best it? Or an alien one?

Elysia
01-09-08, 20:33
Um, no, you're completely mistaken. I don't have to support everything that goes along with some movement called "pro choice" to be in favour of giving women a choice in the matter.

Exactly. I'd rather terms 'pro choice' and 'pro life' were discontinued, because that assumes there are only two standpoints, which is basically rubbish. I support each case being taken on its individual merit, not everyone tarred with the same brush, no matter which way you think. 'Pro choicers' aren't necessarily all baby murders, whereas 'pro life' doesn't necessarily mean you have to support absolutely every single foetus that was ever conceived, ever. My own opinions are actually a mixture of both (for lack of better terms) - I don't necessarily agree with abortion for 'selfish' reasons, but at the same time, it's not up to me, a stranger, to make moral judgements against other women without weighing up their own individual circumstances (and even then, it's a private affair, between herself and the baby's father, if he is around and supportive - I have heard horrible stories where women have essentially been forced into abortions by their baby's father... not nice). For example, I personally think that the 24 week cut off point is FAR too late (especially since I can feel my little one wriggling around at 20 weeks :D) except in absolute and utter dire, life or death circumstances (which is, at the end of the day, what it was intended for), but I still maintain that whatever a woman chooses to do is up to her and not up to a bunch of people who don't know her circumstances -when it comes down to it, I disagree with the blanket judging of people just as much as I do with the 24 week cut off point.

Dakaruch
01-09-08, 20:46
Look, if we don't have certainty that one of those virus could wipe us out, we have the same certainty that it won't. So it is rather irrelevant to starting to find strange virus and what not that could kill us all.
And then again, if you watch closely, even when a virus mutates, there are still people who get immune to it. Why? We know that anti-bodies to a certain virus/disease isn't already present there. They are developed.
Some people resist, others don't.

Geck-o-Lizard
01-09-08, 22:02
ALL GLORY TO THE HYPNOBAMA

yfs1VuFBtpE

Feather Duster
01-09-08, 23:42
Her 17 year-old daughter is pregnant :vlol:

Mad Tony
01-09-08, 23:44
Her 17 year-old daughter is pregnant :vlol:So we're judging politicians on their families now are we? Besides, so what if her daughter is pregnant. The legal age of consent in Alaska is 16, that means that when her daughter did get pregnant she was of legal age.

Quasimodo
01-09-08, 23:47
Her 17 year-old daughter is pregnant :vlol:

...

Imagine the whole world finding out you got pregnant at 17. Would you laugh at any other 17 year old for getting pregnant? I know it's the norm to pick fun at politicians but you gotta feel some sympathy for the girl.

TR3LaraCroft
02-09-08, 00:00
@TR3 Lara Croft - I never said that i'm a pro-choice, or what other label you give to this issues.
To me all this labelling only make this issues look more political. I believe in what i said. You have another way of viewing it, then be my guest to show it here. Now don't ask me how can i be "pro-choice", when i never said that i'm a supporter of it. I'm not a person of extremes mind you, hence why i said that i support abortion to 8-10 weeks max, without any limitation, and after that only supported it with solid medical motives.

what should I have said? I assumed you supported abortion from your post. I thought supporting any form of abortion would be considered pro-choice. Seems like a safe assumption, since you said that you believe abortion is alright if it is within the first 10 weeks. It sure is pro-choice to some extent. I don't know if you would vote for abortion then

Exactly. I'd rather terms 'pro choice' and 'pro life' were discontinued, because that assumes there are only two standpoints, which is basically rubbish. I support each case being taken on its individual merit, not everyone tarred with the same brush,


There are two standpoints! You either believe it is ok to abort a baby. That it's the women's right . Or you don't. you believe life starts at conception.


..you all basically came at me with the same thing. You are inbetween?! (I am assuming.) What exactly does that mean?

What do you vote for then? Do you vote pro-choice? which is support for abortion. Does voting Pro- Choice not allow for all types of abortions? abortion over 8wk? ect.

Are you hoping they will make it an in between someday? Can you vote for that one? The baby can be aborted before 8 weeks? Who makes that decision?!?!! It's alright this way but not that way. What are you purposing!? I am a little bewildered by this. Oh, the baby is a human now and has rights. Last week it didn't. You either believe life starts at conception or you don't! There is no inbetween! And if you don't...when do you believe life starts? how do you determine that?

There are no "grey" areas when it comes to human life

You either will be voting pro-choice and everything that comes along with it. Or your against it. But I don't think you can really say you don't support it ..if you do vote for it?


I'm done.. I have a feeling we could argue this for hours

Ward Dragon
02-09-08, 00:01
...

Imagine the whole world finding out you got pregnant at 17. Would you laugh at any other 17 year old for getting pregnant? I know it's the norm to pick fun at politicians but you gotta feel some sympathy for the girl.

Indeed. I really don't see what the girl's personal choices have to do with her mother's ability to fulfill the duties of the vice president. I think it's just appalling how low the media has gone to try to smear Palin. I mean, referring to voting records, past statements, political ideas, that's all perfectly fine and valid. But how come they are dragging her family into the spotlight like this? :(

Edit: For further clarification, I think that if a family member starts actively campaigning then it's alright to discuss what they say. But Palin's daughter hasn't done anything political as far as I know, and the media isn't discussing her political statements but rather her choice to have a child and get engaged to be married so young. Why is this news?

Quasimodo
02-09-08, 00:15
Indeed. I really don't see what the girl's personal choices have to do with her mother's ability to fulfill the duties of the vice president. I think it's just appalling how low the media has gone to try to smear Palin. I mean, referring to voting records, past statements, political ideas, that's all perfectly fine and valid. But how come they are dragging her family into the spotlight like this? :(

I guess some might try to use Bristol as a poster child for the failure of abstinence only education, or to paint Sarah as an unfit mother. Even the best parents cannot totally control their children or expect them to make wise decisions 100% of the time. I would agree that abstinence only sex ed is incomplete sex ed. Show 'em some birthing videos, and let them decide if it's worth the risk ;)heh...really, though, if a teen isn't going to have sex until marriage for religious or practical reasons, they could still use that knowledge for when they eventually do become sexually active.

Ward Dragon
02-09-08, 00:23
I guess some might try to use Bristol as a poster child for the failure of abstinence only education, or to paint Sarah as an unfit mother.

Ugh, I hate that crap. On the one hand, the media is all for splashing sex all over the TV, free love, etc. but whenever a conservative has a pregnant 17 year old daughter, a lesbian daughter, etc. the news jumps on it so quickly as if it's something awful :rolleyes: Why do people have to turn these children into political targets? :(

Edit: On the plus side, the fact that they are trying so so hard to come up with dirt on Palin and the best they can do is pick on her pregnant daughter, that helps to convince me that Palin is clean. I'm pretty sure I will vote for her, assuming something really bad doesn't happen between now and November to convince me otherwise.

Feather Duster
02-09-08, 01:28
...

Imagine the whole world finding out you got pregnant at 17. Would you laugh at any other 17 year old for getting pregnant? I know it's the norm to pick fun at politicians but you gotta feel some sympathy for the girl.

I did not know about Alaska's age limit, so I apologize for that statement.

But really, I don't think anyone would spend 24/7 joking about me in their lives, yes it's embarrassing, but no one would really care about me. Why?Cause they don't know me. I don't think I should feel sympathy for her, she is of legal age. ;)

And actually, yes I would laugh. I understand if the girl was raped. But when she says, " Blake, come one, let's go up to my room " I get a different opinion of the girl.

I'm pretty sure she used protection, but protection isn't always 100% effective.

Excuse me for having an opinion on who to like and sympathize for. ;)


Indeed. I really don't see what the girl's personal choices have to do with her mother's ability to fulfill the duties of the vice president. I think it's just appalling how low the media has gone to try to smear Palin. I mean, referring to voting records, past statements, political ideas, that's all perfectly fine and valid. But how come they are dragging her family into the spotlight like this? :(

Edit: For further clarification, I think that if a family member starts actively campaigning then it's alright to discuss what they say. But Palin's daughter hasn't done anything political as far as I know, and the media isn't discussing her political statements but rather her choice to have a child and get engaged to be married so young. Why is this news?

It shows how well Palin raised her.

Mad Tony
02-09-08, 01:30
I did not know about Alaska's age limit, so I apologize for that statement.

But really, I don't think anyone would spend 24/7 joking about me in their lives, yes it's embarrassing, but no one would really care about me. Why?Cause they don't know me. I don't think I should feel sympathy for her, she is of legal age. ;)

And actually, yes I would laugh. I understand if the girl was raped. But when she says, " Blake, come one, let's go up to my room " I get a different opinion of the girl.

I'm pretty sure she used protection, but protection isn't always 100% effective.

Excuse me for having an opinion on who to like and sympathize for. ;)I still don't see how her being pregnant is funny and how this would effect how well Sarah Palin could cope with being VP if elected.

LegendLuvr24
02-09-08, 01:36
www.huffingtonpost.com

The hourly drama unfolding on the front page as more and more dirt is found on Palin is almost comical. It's becoming increasingly evident that McCain's VP pick was rushed to take the spotlight away from Obama's historical achievement, and now that "McSame" is being criticized for his judgment when he's supposed to be some sort of 'maverick', I couldn't be happier. This guy is a joke and anybody who thinks McCain is less corrupt than Bush, needs to look here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Keating_Five

Obama needs to hit McCain on this, and hit him on it hard. I for one support Obama for the election, and the fact that Justin apparently seems to as well has made me respect him even more. Go Justin!

Ward Dragon
02-09-08, 01:52
www.huffingtonpost.com

The hourly drama unfolding on the front page as more and more dirt is found on Palin is almost comical. It's becoming increasingly evident that McCain's VP pick was rushed to take the spotlight away from Obama's historical achievement, and now that "McSame" is being criticized for his judgment when he's supposed to be some sort of 'maverick', I couldn't be happier. This guy is a joke and anybody who thinks McCain is less corrupt than Bush, needs to look here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Keating_Five

Obama needs to hit McCain on this, and hit him on it hard. I for one support Obama for the election, and the fact that Justin apparently seems to as well has made me respect him even more. Go Justin!

The "drama" surrounding Palin is nothing more than a pathetically desperate attempt to drag her through the mud since they cannot find anything real to criticize her for. As for the Keating Five, the Wiki article says that McCain did not break any laws and it looks like he was only investigated for political reasons:

The Ethics Committee ruled that the involvement of McCain in the scheme was also minimal, and he too was cleared of all charges against him.[17][16] McCain was criticized by the Committee for exercising "poor judgment" when he met with the federal regulators on Keating's behalf.[6] The report also said that McCain's "actions were not improper nor attended with gross negligence and did not reach the level of requiring institutional action against him....Senator McCain has violated no law of the United States or specific Rule of the United States Senate."[20] On his Keating Five experience, McCain has said: "The appearance of it was wrong. It's a wrong appearance when a group of senators appear in a meeting with a group of regulators, because it conveys the impression of undue and improper influence. And it was the wrong thing to do."[6]

Several accounts of the controversy contend that McCain was included in the investigation primarily so that there would be at least one Republican target.

Quasimodo
02-09-08, 01:54
Wikipedia's political articles come off a wee bit biased more often than not, too. I wouldn't depend solely on them for political info, especially around controversies.

Ward Dragon
02-09-08, 01:55
Wikipedia's political articles come off a wee bit biased more often than not, too. I wouldn't depend solely on them for political info, especially around controversies.

Definitely, which is why I was surprised that the Wiki article said he did not break any laws and I thought it was worth mentioning, especially considering that article was the "proof" that McCain was corrupt :p

It shows how well Palin raised her.

I don't even know how to respond to this. First of all, if the daughter is happy and her family supports her, then how is this a bad thing? Secondly, what does it have to do with Palin's ability to be vice president? And third, are parents always responsible for everything their children do even once the child is legally of age to decide for themselves? That's absurd.

patriots88888
02-09-08, 03:59
and how this would effect how well Sarah Palin could cope with being VP if elected.

This is my main concern though. Why should she have to cope with being VP if she is to become VP? You state it as if it's a dilemma in itself. Sure, certain issues may arise during one's term in political office that may warrant the need to analyze and for lack of a better term "cope" with these issues to render a constructive decision on them. But speaking in general terms, "I do not want a VP or any politician who views their time in office as something they feel the need to "cope" with."

Gov. Sarah Palin is inexperienced in many areas that is a fact. That is why I and so many others are very concerned about her being chosen by Mccain as his running mate. One could argue that it also brings to light Mccain's judgement and intentions in this regard.

Ward Dragon
02-09-08, 04:01
Gov. Sarah Palin is inexperienced in many areas that is a fact. That is why I and so many others are very concerned about her being chosen by Mccain as his running mate. One could argue that it also brings to light Mccain's judgement and intentions in this regard.

Palin still has more executive experience than Obama, so I really don't understand why his team is ridiculing her lack of experience. It's like he's shooting himself in the foot :p

patriots88888
02-09-08, 04:04
Palin still has more executive experience than Obama, so I really don't understand why his team is ridiculing her lack of experience. It's like he's shooting himself in the foot :p

I agree with that. It is like the kettle calling the pot "black". I was merely pointing out some valid concerns when it comes to Mccains judgement and "true" intentions in this regard.

Ward Dragon
02-09-08, 04:11
I agree with that. It is like the kettle calling the pot "black". I was merely pointing out some valid concerns when it comes to Mccains judgement and "true" intentions in this regard.

I don't think he has any ulterior motives. Choosing Palin was obviously a political move, and quite a good one at that (she's conservative enough to appeal the Republicans who don't think McCain is consistently conservative, plus her being on the ticket is one additional reason for all of those angry Hillary supporters in PUMA to vote for McCain as they threatened they would do anyway).

patriots88888
02-09-08, 04:14
I don't think he has any ulterior motives. Choosing Palin was obviously a political move, and quite a good one at that (she's conservative enough to appeal the Republicans who don't think McCain is consistently conservative, plus her being on the ticket is one additional reason for all of those angry Hillary supporters in PUMA to vote for McCain as they threatened they would do anyway).

So based on what you have just stated in your reply, you have no problem with this? Seems like it was a very self-serving decision on his part and not in the best interests of the American public.

Ward Dragon
02-09-08, 04:22
So based on what you have just stated in your reply, you have no problem with this? Seems like it was a very self-serving decision on his part and not in the best interests of the American public.

He chose his vice presidential candidate based upon who he thought would get the most votes, in other words, who he thought the most Americans would want for vice president. I don't see how that's against the best interests of the American public :)

patriots88888
02-09-08, 04:38
He chose his vice presidential candidate based upon who he thought would get the most votes, in other words, who he thought the most Americans would want for vice president. I don't see how that's against the best interests of the American public :)

Well there is the dilemma in itself. Most voters don't vote in this way. Their primary reason for voting in Presidential elections is based on who they feel would in fact make for the best President based on their feelings and opinions toward that individual not on who his/her running mate is. Yes, that candidates VP can be a factor, but it usually is not a primary one.

McCain's intentions may seem legitamite on the surface, but I for one am not buying into them. As I have already stated, they are very self-serving and not in America's best interests.

Ward Dragon
02-09-08, 04:54
Well there is the dilemma in itself. Most voters don't vote in this way. Their primary reason for voting in Presidential elections is based on who they feel would in fact make for the best President based on their feelings and opinions toward that individual not on who his/her running mate is. Yes, that candidates VP can be a factor, but it usually is not a primary one.

McCain's intentions may seem legitamite on the surface, but I for one am not buying into them. As I have already stated, they are very self-serving and not in America's best interests.

Every politician does whatever they think will get the most votes. That's nothing new or even necessarily bad. McCain choosing Palin is no more self-serving than Obama choosing Biden. They each picked whoever they thought would be most appealing to the voters. McCain chose a conservative woman to appeal to voting demographics he was weak in, and Obama chose Biden to try to counteract the loss of votes from his own lack of experience. All politicians are self-serving in this sense, otherwise they wouldn't win elections and they'd be out of office.

McCain's vice-presidential choice is publically known prior to the election, and he's not going to suddenly change his mind and appoint someone else should he win, so I see no problem with letting the voters decide if they make a good team or not.

Edit: I felt like adding that I really don't care why a candidate makes promises prior to an election as long as they actually follow through on what they promised should they win. What I really hate is when they promise something that gets them elected and then they forget about it without making good on the promise :hea:

patriots88888
02-09-08, 05:50
Every politician does whatever they think will get the most votes. That's nothing new or even necessarily bad. McCain choosing Palin is no more self-serving than Obama choosing Biden. :

It is if gender plays a big part in it. If his "true" intentions were to sway female voters based on his selection of Palin, then you bet it is self-serving and not in America's best interests. Many female voters may find it rather insulting and questioning their intelligence. That is why i asked you in an earlier reply if you were comfortable with this. I don't recall receiving an answer though.

Like I have said, it really comes down to McCain's judgement (or lack of it) in this regard. IMO he should chose a running mate who is most qualified for the position of VP and is able to maintain that position effectively and efficiently.

I am on no sides with this. I could say the same for Obama's lack of experience. I am strictly questioning McCain's judgement and intentions in his choice for VP, nothing more.

Ward Dragon
02-09-08, 06:04
It is if gender plays a big part in it. If his "true" intentions were to sway female voters based on his selection of Palin, then you bet it is self-serving and not in America's best interests. Many female voters may find it rather insulting and questioning their intelligence. That is why i asked you in an earlier reply if you were comfortable with this. I don't recall receiving an answer though.

I don't think race/gender/etc. should be part of the reason to vote for or against somebody, and it won't affect my vote. I don't agree with Sarah Palin on several issues, but I think she'd make a good vice president so I really don't care why McCain chose her. Assuming he wins this election, I kind of expect him to retire in four years and let her run for president anyway.

Like I have said, it really comes down to McCain's judgement (or lack of it) in this regard. IMO he should chose a running mate who is most qualified for the position of VP and is able to maintain that position effectively and efficiently.

I am on no sides with this. I could say the same for Obama's lack of experience. I am strictly questioning McCain's judgement and intentions in his choice for VP, nothing more.

McCain's intentions are to win the election, and his judgment seems quite good to me since I think his choice for VP will help him to win. I don't think that's a bad thing at all since it looks to me like he will do less damage than Obama (although I don't like either of them) so McCain winning would be for the good of the general public (I can't believe I just said that since I hate McCain, but I *really* don't like Obama's policies. Why do the Democrats keep picking people I can't vote for? I need some good options, dammit!)

patriots88888
02-09-08, 06:31
I am assuming without a direct answer but based on your replies that you are comfortable in McCain's intentions on his choice for VP.

Not that it proves anything, but I happen to have spoken to alot of voters (both male and female) who are not feeling good about this. They (and myself) feel that McCain has sunk his own ship because of this. Not because Palin is female, but because she was chosen because she is female. Most voters really want those who are experienced and qualified regardless of gender. Again, the same can be said of Obama himself, but the difference is that McCain made poor judgement in his choice. Everyone I have spoken to have no reference as to who she is or what she is truly about. The average voter probably hadn't ever heard of her before she was chosen. Not saying that makes it good or bad, but what it does show is that she is at least "perceived" to be inexperienced and lacking the qualifications that most voters hope to see and expect in any candidate seeking political office. So I don't understand how McCain's choice can be considered a wise, prudent, or good choice.

Many of these people I have spoken to are die-hard Republicans but have the strong feeling that McCain has doomed himself with his actions in this regard. It all goes back to the premise of McCain's judgement and decision making that many people (myself included) are questioning that also could in fact be an issue during his Presidency IF he were to be elected.

Mad Tony
02-09-08, 10:17
This is my main concern though. Why should she have to cope with being VP if she is to become VP? You state it as if it's a dilemma in itself. Sure, certain issues may arise during one's term in political office that may warrant the need to analyze and for lack of a better term "cope" with these issues to render a constructive decision on them. But speaking in general terms, "I do not want a VP or any politician who views their time in office as something they feel the need to "cope" with."

Gov. Sarah Palin is inexperienced in many areas that is a fact. That is why I and so many others are very concerned about her being chosen by Mccain as his running mate. One could argue that it also brings to light Mccain's judgement and intentions in this regard.By cope I meant handle. Basically I was just asking how her daughter being pregnant would effect how well Palin does her job as VP (if elected).

Oh, and on a slightly different topic I just checked the BBC website and only just found the first bit of coverage on the Republican National Convention. Just before and while the DNC was on the BBC would put it on the front page almost every day. Then when the RNC comes round it hardly gets any coverage at all. Typical pathetic media bias.

Draco
02-09-08, 11:51
Not that it proves anything, but I happen to have spoken to alot of voters (both male and female) who are not feeling good about this. They (and myself) feel that McCain has sunk his own ship because of this. Not because Palin is female, but because she was chosen because she is female.

Why did Obama choose Biden?

Most voters really want those who are experienced and qualified regardless of gender.

If that were true, Clinton would be the Democratic nominee.

Again, the same can be said of Obama himself, but the difference is that McCain made poor judgement in his choice.

I dont think he did actually. He is further establishing his Maverick image without alienating anyone except sexists who believe females cant be leaders.

Everyone I have spoken to have no reference as to who she is or what she is truly about.

Thanks to the media, I learned more bad things about her daughter in two days than I have learned good things about Obama since he entered the race.

The average voter probably hadn't ever heard of her before she was chosen. Not saying that makes it good or bad, but what it does show is that she is at least "perceived" to be inexperienced and lacking the qualifications that most voters hope to see and expect in any candidate seeking political office. So I don't understand how McCain's choice can be considered a wise, prudent, or good choice.

I seem to remember an unknown Arkansas governor taking an 8 year term by a landslide.

Many of these people I have spoken to are die-hard Republicans but have the strong feeling that McCain has doomed himself with his actions in this regard. It all goes back to the premise of McCain's judgement and decision making that many people (myself included) are questioning that also could in fact be an issue during his Presidency IF he were to be elected.

I'd rather have Palin be President than Biden any day. Madam President has a nice ring to it.

patriots88888
02-09-08, 13:01
"Why did Obama choose Biden?"

"Among those on the short list, Biden brought the most experience in defense or foreign policy — areas in which Obama fares relatively poorly in the polls compared with Republican Sen. John McCain."

Source:http://www.oanow.com/oan/news/local/article/obama_chooses_biden/33104/

That is the primary reason for Obama choosing Biden as his VP. It was a decision primarily based on experience.

"If that were true, Clinton would be the Democratic nominee."

Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama have virtually an equal amount of time served in political office. Experience from actual served time is my point here.

"I dont think he did actually. He is further establishing his Maverick image without alienating anyone except sexists who believe females cant be leaders"
That Maverick image isn't necessarily a good thing to many voters though. I happen to agree that females should be treated the same as males when seeking political office but experience should be a deciding factor.

"Thanks to the media, I learned more bad things about her daughter in two days than I have learned good things about Obama since he entered the race."
That is most unfortunate and further exemplifies what I have stated in regards to Palin. I wasn't referring to family members of hers. As for the Obama part of your reply: That is your opinion or take on what you have learned. Not everyone sees it the same as you.

"I seem to remember an unknown Arkansas governor taking an 8 year term by a landslide."

Speaking only on a comparitive note: Bill Clinton even before he was elected, was in fact more recognized as a political figure in the public eye than Sarah Palin is at present time.

"I'd rather have Palin be President than Biden any day. Madam President has a nice ring to it."

I am sincerely glad that you feel that way but alot of people and voters do not share your same sentiment. Again not because she is female but because of the experience (lack of it) issue.

Goose
02-09-08, 13:19
I dont know why people get worked up about the actual president, its not like they physically run the country, do people get this worked up over who's sitting in congress?

patriots88888
02-09-08, 13:26
I dont know why people get worked up about the actual president, its not like they physically run the country, do people get this worked up over who's sitting in congress?

That is a very good question and my honest belief is, No they do not.

I am not worked up about this Presidential election at all. I am merely pointing out some of the reasons why Sarah Palin was not a wise choice for VP and how that relates to McCain's judgement and decision making.

Goose
02-09-08, 13:29
That is a very good question and my honest belief is, No they do not.

I am not worked up about this Presidential election at all. I am merely pointing out some of the reasons why Sarah Palin was not a wise choice for VP and how that relates to McCain's judgement and decision making.

People are'nt that worked up here, i was talking about people out and about who seem frantic about it, the type you can't debate with who believe this is some kind of turning point in history, war and economy.

Yet they dont know who the the head of defence is or who's incharge of commerce.

Sedge
02-09-08, 14:51
*observes*
http://www.clicksmilies.com/s1106/ernaehrung/food-smiley-021.gif

.. Wow, I have no idea how I actually managed to read through the whole thread.. Every. Single. Post. Why do I find it so amusing witnessing these kinds of conversations even though I never actually participate in them? ô_o .. sneaky! :pi:

Draco
02-09-08, 15:49
"Among those on the short list, Biden brought the most experience in defense or foreign policy — areas in which Obama fares relatively poorly in the polls compared with Republican Sen. John McCain."

Source:http://www.oanow.com/oan/news/local/article/obama_chooses_biden/33104/

That is the primary reason for Obama choosing Biden as his VP. It was a decision primarily based on experience.

Besides the fact experience doesn't mean too much really, McCain did the same thing, he got the candidate that filled in the holes he himself did not.

Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama have virtually an equal amount of time served in political office. Experience from actual served time is my point here.

Yet, Hillary has spent more time in the White House than most elected Presidents have.

That Maverick image isn't necessarily a good thing to many voters though.

It is when people hate Bush.

That is most unfortunate and further exemplifies what I have stated in regards to Palin. I wasn't referring to family members of hers. As for the Obama part of your reply: That is your opinion or take on what you have learned. Not everyone sees it the same as you.

Well, I still don't know what Obama believes in...other than 'change'...whatever that means.

Speaking only on a comparitive note: Bill Clinton even before he was elected, was in fact more recognized as a political figure in the public eye than Sarah Palin is at present time.

True, yet Palin is just a VP, a position with practically no power...until the President dies, resigns, or lets the VP do their thing.

I am sincerely glad that you feel that way but alot of people and voters do not share your same sentiment. Again not because she is female but because of the experience (lack of it) issue.

Experience is overrated, everyone *****es about politicians being all the same...guess what makes them that way...yeah, experience.

haikudasai
02-09-08, 16:24
what should I have said? I assumed you supported abortion from your post. I thought supporting any form of abortion would be considered pro-choice. Seems like a safe assumption, since you said that you believe abortion is alright if it is within the first 10 weeks. It sure is pro-choice to some extent. I don't know if you would vote for abortion then



There are two standpoints! You either believe it is ok to abort a baby. That it's the women's right . Or you don't. you believe life starts at conception.


..you all basically came at me with the same thing. You are inbetween?! (I am assuming.) What exactly does that mean?

What do you vote for then? Do you vote pro-choice? which is support for abortion. Does voting Pro- Choice not allow for all types of abortions? abortion over 8wk? ect.

Are you hoping they will make it an in between someday? Can you vote for that one? The baby can be aborted before 8 weeks? Who makes that decision?!?!! It's alright this way but not that way. What are you purposing!? I am a little bewildered by this. Oh, the baby is a human now and has rights. Last week it didn't. You either believe life starts at conception or you don't! There is no inbetween! And if you don't...when do you believe life starts? how do you determine that?

There are no "grey" areas when it comes to human life

You either will be voting pro-choice and everything that comes along with it. Or your against it. But I don't think you can really say you don't support it ..if you do vote for it?


I'm done.. I have a feeling we could argue this for hours

I don't agree with your view points.


It should be case by case due to the sensitivity of each issue and how much they vary.

A woman who is raped should not have to watch as this baby grows and constantly reminds her of what happened.

A woman who was irresponsible and got pregnant because of it shouldn't bring a baby she's uncapable of having into the world.

I believe there should be some sort of cut off time, before the baby is even in it's 2 trimester (or sooner). Before the poor thing even starts to resemble a human.

There's always the option of adoption but again the process of a pregnancy can throw off someone's entire life during that 9 months.

Also, there are enough unwanted children in the world that should be adopted. It's sad that people are like this with kids just like they are with adopting an animal. They always want the youngest and smallest when there are a ton out there that have no one to call parents.

Shouldn't the term pro-life take these children into consideration. Giving them a LIFE to live that will benefit them in the long run?

Paul H
02-09-08, 17:13
Yet, Hillary has spent more time in the White House than most elected Presidents have.



So has Bush's dog. :D

Bush's dog for president. Why not? I'm sure it would be better than Bush or McCain.

Draco
02-09-08, 17:33
So has Bush's dog. :D

Bush's dog for president. Why not? I'm sure it would be better than Bush or McCain.

Comparing Hillary to a dog? Even I'm not that low.

Goose
02-09-08, 17:34
Comparing Hillary to a dog? Even I'm not that low.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2Xb3bDwE9jQ

Mad Tony
02-09-08, 17:41
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2Xb3bDwE9jQThat's hilarious! :vlol:

Mona Sax
02-09-08, 17:51
I agree that Palin's family should be left alone. Personal attacks on her and her daughter are totally uncalled for - we need less, not more mud in politics.

What I do find funny, though, is how the same people that condemn premarital sex as 'sinful' now use that one particular example to show how 'real' and 'American' their candidate is. Well, I totally agree, obviously, but one of these days you're going to have to make up your minds.

Draco
02-09-08, 19:05
Perhaps it is possible that not every Republican is a religious drone? Infact, I'd bet we are in the majority.

Mona Sax
02-09-08, 19:43
Then don't feel addressed.

pizzabob18
02-09-08, 19:46
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BJHJC5geXEo


Watch this video in it's entirety!

Besides the occasional funny parts, it gets serious later on, especially at around 7 minutes.

I'm not just against McCain now, I'm worried about our country if he gets elected, and Pailin is his VP!

If he dies in office, she'll take over our country, and as the video says, she has very little experience - although you'll have to watch the video fully to find out the complete facts.

Goose
02-09-08, 19:54
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BJHJC5geXEo


Watch this video in it's entirety!

Besides the occasional funny parts, it gets serious later on, especially at around 7 minutes.

I'm not just against McCain now, I'm worried about our country if he gets elected, and Pailin is his VP!

If he dies in office, she'll take over our country, and as the video says, she has very little experience - although you'll have to watch the video fully to find out the complete facts.

Out of interest, who is McCain going to have as secretary of defense and commerce?

Ward Dragon
02-09-08, 20:26
I am assuming without a direct answer but based on your replies that you are comfortable in McCain's intentions on his choice for VP.

I thought I directly said I don't care about his intentions anymore as long as the resulting actions are acceptable. I'm cynical and I expect all politicians are in it for personal gain anyway, so I just pick which ones I think will actually do things I can agree with regardless of their motivations.

As for the rest of your post, I think Draco already answered that for me :)

McCain and Palin have 2 1/2 months to convince everyone that she knows what she's doing and is capable of being VP. That's possible if they start now instead of letting the media continue to assassinate her character.

TR3LaraCroft
02-09-08, 20:32
It depends on your personal beliefs then.
Like you mentioned, a women who is raped should not have to watch as this baby grows inside her.

I am a christian. And even though what has happened to that women is horrible and such an aweul thing to go through. . I believe that there is a reason for every single life that exists. And God has a plan and a purpose. I believe God can turn around some of the horrible situations and things that people do and use them for good.
My cousin Debbie is a result of a rape. And her mother kept her. She is a wonderful person and I love her. She has two beautiful children and 4 beautiful grand children who wouldn't be here .I can't imagine my little cousins not being here.

I know I posting sites earlier, but this is on abortion and rape

"I soon discovered that the aftermath of the abortion continued a long time after the memory of my rape had faded. I felt empty and horrible. Nobody told me about the emptiness and pain I would feel deep within, causing nightmares and deep depressions. They had all told me that after the abortion I would continue on with my life as if nothing had happened. ... I found that though I could forgive the man who raped me, I couldn't forgive myself for having the abortion."

article talking about the issue:
http://www.boundless.org/regulars/kaufman/a0000848.html

For example, it is commonly assumed that rape victims who become pregnant would naturally want abortions. But in the only major study of pregnant rape victims ever done, Dr. Sandra Makhorn found that 75 to 85 percent chose against abortion. This evidence alone should cause people to pause and reflect on the presumption that abortion is wanted or even best for sexual assault victims.

Several reasons are given for not aborting. First, approximately 70 percent of all women believe abortion is immoral, even though many feel it should be a legal choice for others. Approximately the same percentage believe abortion would be just another act of violence against their bodies and their children.




A woman who was irresponsible and got pregnant because of it shouldn't bring a baby she's uncapable of having into the world.

I believe there should be some sort of cut off time, before the baby is even in it's 2 trimester (or sooner). Before the poor thing even starts to resemble a human.



So, the baby should have it's life taken away? What kind of mentality would this promote? Just do what you please. That is ok to just kill a baby if you get pregnant...and don't want it. Again, it depends on your beliefs. Do you believe you are taking a human life

And as I said before. How would you be able to determine when life starts then? When the baby starts to resemble a human? That makes me sad. Is that when it's affirmed as a life. Should the law be able to make that sort of judgment? they decide when we are human...

I don't understand how the point can be argued.
It is clear to me and I know I'm never going to agree with anyone who is for any kind of abortion. It 's important to me. ..and I don't believe it is a "right" to end a life. And that it is a life growing inside a women. When life begins to form. Life begins! At the start

You are stopping a human life when you have an abortion.

Ward Dragon
02-09-08, 20:38
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BJHJC5geXEo


Watch this video in it's entirety!

Besides the occasional funny parts, it gets serious later on, especially at around 7 minutes.

I'm not just against McCain now, I'm worried about our country if he gets elected, and Pailin is his VP!

If he dies in office, she'll take over our country, and as the video says, she has very little experience - although you'll have to watch the video fully to find out the complete facts.

About that video, people keep taking her quote about what the VP does out of context. The full quote was just in the Wiki article yesterday but someone deleted it today :rolleyes:

Kudlow: All right. You have a legion of fans who want you to become Senator McCain’s vice-presidential candidate. In fact, on the world’s largest pay-to-play prediction market, betting parlor, called InTrade, you are in third place with a 20 percent support probability behind former Governor Romney and present Governor of Minnesota Pawlenty. Is this police flap, state investigation, going to disqualify you from becoming Senator McCain’s vice-presidential candidate?

Palin: Well it shouldn’t disqualify me from anything, including progressing the state’s agenda here towards more energy production so we can contribute more to the U.S. Nor should it dissuade any kind of agenda progress in any arena because again, I haven’t done anything wrong. And through an investigation of our lawmakers who are kind of looking at me as a target, we invite those questions so that we can truthfully answer the questions.

But as for that VP talk all the time, I’ll tell you, I still can’t answer that question until somebody answers for me what is it exactly that the VP does everyday? I’m used to being very productive and working real hard in an administration. We want to make sure that that VP slot would be a fruitful type of position, especially for Alaskans and for the things that we’re trying to accomplish up here for the rest of the U.S., before I can even start addressing that question.


http://www.cnbc.com/id/25970197

She was basically saying she'd only accept the VP role if she could be assured that she would have to work hard and be productive in the administration. Sounds good to me.

Goose
03-09-08, 06:51
"From the L.A. Times:

Ashley Blazer Biden, of Wilmington, Del., was with a group of “friends” on a North Side Chicago street where several bars are located when someone else threw a bottle at an officer, police said.

When police tried to arrest that other person, Ashley blocked the officer’s path and made intimidating statements, about who she was, who her father was, and the like, and generally tried to block the officer from arresting Ashley’s “friend”/”acquaintance”, the police officer said.

Miss Biden was later released and is scheduled for court on September 20th."

I wonder if this will be used against Biden like Palins personal life has been against her.

Gregori
03-09-08, 13:06
Wow, not liking a candidate just because of her voice. That's even worse than not liking her because she's in the IRA.

I would certainly hope not!

Mad Tony
03-09-08, 13:08
I would certainly hope not!Why?

Gregori
03-09-08, 13:24
do u read?

read what you posted again!

Mad Tony
03-09-08, 13:27
do u read?

read what you posted again!Sorry, I thought you thought that you hope she's not in the IRA. I dunno why you made the letters IRA bold though, that's what made me think you thought something was wrong with it. :p

Gregori
03-09-08, 13:28
did u mean NRA?

Mad Tony
03-09-08, 13:30
did u mean NRA?Yes, I did. My bad then! I certainly meant the NRA and not the IRA. :eek:

The IRA are scum.

Gregori
03-09-08, 13:32
I have images of her saying "Tiocfaidh ar la!" infront of the tri colour now! :D

Paul H
03-09-08, 14:41
Here is what Bush said in his endorsement of McCain yesterday:

"John is a steadfast opponent of wasteful spending."So the estimated three trillion dollars (http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/columnists/guest_contributors/article3419840.ece) long term cost of the Iraq war, which McCain supported and wants to continue for another 100 years, hasn’t been "wasteful spending" then. :vlol:

Mad Tony
03-09-08, 14:47
People are misinterpreting McCain's comment. I believe this has already been explained before, but obviously some people chose to ignore this explanation.

McCain wants to stay in Iraq until the job is done, which doesn't neccessarily mean he wants to stay there for a hundred years. And the funny thing is, people fail to point out that at one point Obama pretty much held the same view. At the moment, he wants to withdraw the troops from Iraq. He'll no doubt change his mind again though, just like he did when he decided not to visit injured US soldiers at a hospital because there wouldn't be any cameras.

Oh sorry, I forgot, it's not respectful to criticize Obama because after all, he is absolutely perfect and will lead America into a golden age.

Goose
03-09-08, 14:48
I have images of her saying "Tiocfaidh ar la!" infront of the tri colour now! :D

Lol She could be the next Martin McGuinness, comes on tv in a mask to give a message, then starts a political career stating they werent in said organisation, yet its so obviously the same voice!

patriots88888
03-09-08, 15:16
[QUOTE=Draco;3019384]Besides the fact experience doesn't mean too much really, McCain did the same thing, he got the candidate that filled in the holes he himself did not.

Not true. Each VP was chosen for very different reasons. I was pointing out in the previous post that Biden was chosen primarily for his experience not as a reason to appeal to a certain gender of voters as is the case with Palin.

"Palin was chosen over a list of more experienced and better known contenders as the Arizona senator grabbed the political spotlight away from Democratic rival Barack Obama one day after Obama accepted his party's presidential nomination."

"Hillary left 18 million cracks in the highest, hardest glass ceiling in America," she said, referring to the 18 million votes Clinton received in the primaries. "But it turns out the women of America aren't finished yet, and we can shatter that glass ceiling once and for all."

Source: http://www.cnbc.com/id/26454655

Experience may not mean that much to you but it certainly does mean alot to many voters and is often a deciding factor in elections.

Yet, Hillary has spent more time in the White House than most elected Presidents have.

It is irrelevant to the topic of experience gained from time actually served in political office. Granted she did spend much of her time fighting for better health care during most of those eight years but don't be fooled into believing that most of that time was spent gaining experience in a diverse spectrum of political matters.



It is when people hate Bush.

I can't say that I disagree with that. Your point is well taken. Some voters are still put off by it though. Some, but not many.


Well, I still don't know what Obama believes in...other than 'change'...whatever that means.

In it's reletive definition it means bringing about effective policies and structure to supplant what the American public has endured for the better part of 7 years now. A failed economy, health care that is in shambles, and a general but steady decline in the overall quality of life for most of the middle class and working class Americans.



True, yet Palin is just a VP, a position with practically no power...until the President dies, resigns, or lets the VP do their thing.

You might want to reconsider those words. I find it interesting that you have discounted Cheney so readily.

VP Has Again Become A Position of Power
"Long considered one of the most useless jobs in politics, the vice presidency may have been designed by the Constitutional Convention as the second-most prestigious job in the U.S. government, but the position quickly became a laughingstock. Now, as shown by Vice President Dick Cheney's unprecedented exercise of decision-making power and the fact that seven of the past 10 vice presidents have won their party's nomination for the presidency, the position has reclaimed its mantle of importance. Even though the effect of a vice-presidential choice on the outcome of any election is debatable, the changes in the power and influence of the vice president make the selection of a running mate critical for the country.

While there has been much criticism of Cheney exercising too much power, the resurgence of the vice presidency is a welcome change. It gives the country the benefits of productive employment from its only other nationally elected leader, as well as the knowledge that its potential commander-in-chief can step in, if needed. If it maintains a power position, it allows voters to get a full vetting of a key presidential aide, something that does not happen with the usual presidential gurus."

Source: http://www.inrich.com/cva/ric/opinion/oped.apx.-content-articles-RTD-2008-08-10-0056.html


Experience is overrated, everyone *****es about politicians being all the same...guess what makes them that way...yeah, experience.

Well for the most part that is true. Not everyone, but most people do ***** and complain about politicians never fulfilling their promises, myself not excluded. However experience does not make all politicians the same, quite the opposite in fact.

Draco
03-09-08, 15:44
Not true. Each VP was chosen for very different reasons. I was pointing out in the previous post that Biden was chosen primarily for his experience not as a reason to appeal to a certain gender of voters as is the case with Palin.

Obama needed an experienced VP more than he needed to appease Clinton supporters apparently.

"Palin was chosen over a list of more experienced and better known contenders as the Arizona senator grabbed the political spotlight away from Democratic rival Barack Obama one day after Obama accepted his party's presidential nomination."

Uh, McCain doesn't need to add any more experience to his campaign. So he chose the VP that would pad his voter base. I see nothing wrong with that.

Experience may not mean that much to you but it certainly does mean alot to many voters and is often a deciding factor in elections.

Which is why McCain will win.

It is irrelevant to the topic of experience gained from time actually served in political office. Granted she did spend much of her time fighting for better health care during most of those eight years but don't be fooled into believing that most of that time was spent gaining experience in a diverse spectrum of political matters.

You honestly think Hillary had no influence in what Bill decided in the Oval Office? You ever had a wife?

I can't say that I disagree with that. Your point is well taken. Some voters are still put off by it though. Some, but not many.

All the dirt in the world won't stop McCain's VP from being elected with him since voters get turned off by that sort of thing. Besides, didn't Biden's daughter get arrested? Why isn't that plastered all over the news?

In it's reletive definition it means bringing about effective policies and structure to supplant what the American public has endured for the better part of 7 years now. A failed economy, health care that is in shambles, and a general but steady decline in the overall quality of life for most of the middle class and working class Americans.

I agree that the Bush Administration haven't really helped improve America overall, but I don't think Obama will fix it without furthering us along toward socialism. I just can't fathom how anyone can think that even more government interference can be a good thing when the government has already done so much to make our lives harder.

You might want to reconsider those words. I find it interesting that you have discounted Cheney so readily.

I didn't discount Cheney, he fits within the statement I posted.

Well for the most part that is true. Not everyone, but most people do ***** and complain about politicians never fulfilling their promises, myself not excluded. However experience does not make all politicians the same, quite the opposite in fact.

Politicians who get better with experience are in the minority I'd say...such as Ron Paul.

petujaymz
03-09-08, 16:05
Heard the latest?

Turns out her unmarried pregnant daughter is a lesbian.

:wve:

interstellardave
03-09-08, 16:28
Heard the latest?

Turns out her unmarried pregnant daughter is a lesbian.

:wve:


She's been dating that guy a year, got pregnant by him, and they supposedly intend to get married. If she's a lesbian she's going about it the wrong way!

Goose
03-09-08, 16:40
Here is what Bush said in his endorsement of McCain yesterday:

So the estimated three trillion dollars (http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/columnists/guest_contributors/article3419840.ece) long term cost of the Iraq war, which McCain supported and wants to continue for another 100 years, hasn’t been "wasteful spending" then. :vlol:

Obama wants to aswell, mccain said its going to be like Germany and South Korea, it wont cost so much when the insurgents quiten down.

patriots88888
03-09-08, 16:53
[QUOTE=Draco;3021502]Obama needed an experienced VP more than he needed to appease Clinton supporters apparently.

That is true and is the reason why I feel his choice for VP is a much wiser one than McCain's. I actually respect and admire the fact that Obama can see where he is lacking and is willing to push aside his personal pride, which in fact, is in best interests of the American public.


Uh, McCain doesn't need to add any more experience to his campaign. So he chose the VP that would pad his voter base. I see nothing wrong with that.

Great. A candidate who will let his ego dictate important decisions rather than experience and education. Just what this country needs more of. :rolleyes:

Which is why McCain will win.

That is very debateable, especially considering the fact that he has already shown poor judgement and decision making during his time running for President. Many people, including myself, feel that may in fact have a carry-over effect IF he were to be elected.

You honestly think Hillary had no influence in what Bill decided in the Oval Office? You ever had a wife?

Yes I do have a wife. However we keep our personal relationship seperate from our professional lives. She has her career and I have mine. We do not get involved or pry into each others professional lives.

And to answer your question on Hillary as to whether or not she had any influence: I honestly believe that Bill Clinton being the egomaniac that he is, discounted any input that she may have injected other than the health care reform issue. That was her personal crusade.

And furthermore it is all irrelevant anyways to what I had already stated about gaining political experience from her own time served.

All the dirt in the world won't stop McCain's VP from being elected with him since voters get turned off by that sort of thing. Besides, didn't Biden's daughter get arrested? Why isn't that plastered all over the news?

Well if you are referring to television news then that is a good question. However a quick internet search will supply you with hundreds of results on this topic.

In all fairness it should be brought to light if the saying, "All is fair in War and Politics" is true. I believe it had been brought up in the past but because it occured in Aug. of 2002 it is no longer considered "relevant news" by the media standard we have today. Not saying that makes it right nor wrong though.


I agree that the Bush Administration haven't really helped improve America overall, but I don't think Obama will fix it without furthering us along toward socialism. I just can't fathom how anyone can think that even more government interference can be a good thing when the government has already done so much to make our lives harder.

In what respect are you saying this? Please be more specific on this.

While I agree that "fix" is a very loose and general term, I do believe that much change and reform is in fact what this country desperately needs at this time. You may feel comfortable with how things are going at present time, but most Americans are not sharing that same sentiment. They are very unhappy with the status quo.


I didn't discount Cheney, he fits within the statement I posted.

"True, yet Palin is just a VP, a position with practically no power"

You did say this however and if you read my reply you would see that general statement you made is no longer the truth.

Politicians who get better with experience are in the minority I'd say...such as Ron Paul.

You may be right about that, speaking only in a cynical way, but I sincerely hope and pray that is not the truth.

Mona Sax
03-09-08, 17:48
He'll no doubt change his mind again though, just like he did when he decided not to visit injured US soldiers at a hospital because there wouldn't be any cameras.
He did cancel a planned visit - but there weren't supposed to be any cameras in the first place.

http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/snubbing_wounded_troops.html

Although that particular one is an old rumor, I think the political atmosphere has become a lot worse during the last few days, probably due to the general shock of Palin's appointment. Even mainstream media have spread a lot of half-truths, rumors and outright lies about all candidates and their families. It's got to stop.

Don't believe anything you read or hear until you've checked several reliable sources (that excludes Daily Kos and Fox News, along with all talk radio stations ;)).

Draco
03-09-08, 17:52
That is true and is the reason why I feel his choice for VP is a much wiser one than McCain's. I actually respect and admire the fact that Obama can see where he is lacking and is willing to push aside his personal pride, which in fact, is in best interests of the American public.

Obama pushing aside his personal pride, yeah I don't think so. Isn't he the same guy who wouldn't go to see something he should because there would be no media coverage?

Great. A candidate who will let his ego dictate important decisions rather than experience and education. Just what this country needs more of. :rolleyes:

I don't think it is egotistical to be good at politics.

That is very debateable, especially considering the fact that he has already shown poor judgement and decision making during his time running for President. Many people, including myself, feel that may in fact have a carry-over effect IF he were to be elected.

Can you give any examples of the poor decisions? Frankly the attention being paid to his VP pick says he made the right choice and the Dems are worried.

Yes I do have a wife. However we keep our personal relationship seperate from our professional lives. She has her career and I have mine. We do not get involved or pry into each others professional lives.

The First Lady is as much a part of the President's professional life as the Vice President, moreso before Cheney came to be VP though.

And to answer your question on Hillary as to whether or not she had any influence: I honestly believe that Bill Clinton being the egomaniac that he is, discounted any input that she may have injected other than the health care reform issue. That was her personal crusade.

Bill is not a stupid man, ego or not. He knows when to listen to the people close to him.

Well if you are referring to television news then that is a good question. However a quick internet search will supply you with hundreds of results on this topic.

There remains a lack of congruency with the way the two are being handled. Biden's daughter is a spoiled brat (or seems to be) and Palin's is just a normal teen in America.

In what respect are you saying this? Please be more specific on this.

The government has too much influence already, we don't need to let it have more.

While I agree that "fix" is a very loose and general term, I do believe that much change and reform is in fact what this country desperately needs at this time. You may feel comfortable with how things are going at present time, but most Americans are not sharing that same sentiment. They are very unhappy with the status quo.

I am not happy with the status quo, I'm voting for Ron Paul.

"True, yet Palin is just a VP, a position with practically no power"

You did say this however and if you read my reply you would see that general statement you made is no longer the truth.

You took my words out of context, which invalidates yours.

You may be right about that, speaking only in a cynical way, but I sincerely hope and pray that is not the truth.

Truth is relative.

patriots88888
03-09-08, 18:37
[QUOTE=Draco;3021805]Obama pushing aside his personal pride, yeah I don't think so. Isn't he the same guy who wouldn't go to see something he should because there would be no media coverage?

In respect to his decision on VP he did in fact do just that. As for the other, I would have to say that was in fact a poor decision on his part and one that i sincerely hope he regrets.



I don't think it is egotistical to be good at politics.

It is if you have the mentality that you no longer need to grow as an individual both from a personal and professional standpoint.



Can you give any examples of the poor decisions? Frankly the attention being paid to his VP pick says he made the right choice and the Dems are worried.

That is the main poor decision I am referring to. I don't see the Dems as being worried about it. Why worry over a carelessly and hastily made decision, which this obviously was. It was made to gain sympathetic votes which will ultimately backfire on McCain. I have faith that the American voting public will see right through this vain and desperate attempt.



The First Lady is as much a part of the President's professional life as the Vice President, moreso before Cheney came to be VP though.

Wrong. Two words. Barbara Bush. I can still vividly remember a television interview from 1992 she and George H. did where she clearly stated unequivocally that she did not get involved with any political decisions nor did she care to.



Bill is not a stupid man, ego or not. He knows when to listen to the people close to him.

I stick by my belief that, other than health care, Hillary had little or no influence over any other Executive decisions while her husband was in office. If you want to believe the contrary, then fine. But until any proof is shown in either way, no-one can say for sure.



There remains a lack of congruency with the way the two are being handled. Biden's daughter is a spoiled brat (or seems to be) and Palin's is just a normal teen in America.

I stated that I agree with you on this. I was merely pointing out that because of the time reference, it was most likely deemed as "old news" by the media. As I said before, it doesn't make it right nor wrong.


The government has too much influence already, we don't need to let it have more.

What is your proposal then? I agree with the premise of "Power To The People". It is the very basis of what are country was founded on. Reduction in government sounds nice, but how do we go about accomplishing this in our present time? Any suggestions?


I am not happy with the status quo, I'm voting for Ron Paul.

Cool. And I mean that with the utmost sincerity. I admire people who stand behind their principles. I applaud you.



You took my words out of context, which invalidates yours.

What I was referring to in my reply is: If it is no longer the case, then why mention it in the first place? So it doesn't invalidate my reply and shows that your reply was very misleading and was stated in a vain attempt to try and confuse. Which didn't happen by the way. You seem to try that alot but I can see right through it all.



Truth is relative.

Yes, but so is "evil politics". :p :)

Draco
03-09-08, 20:00
Wrong. Two words. Barbara Bush. I can still vividly remember a television interview from 1992 she and George H. did where she clearly stated unequivocally that she did not get involved with any political decisions nor did she care to.

That was her decision. Some First Ladies take the implied position to mean they have a responsibility toward helping out the President domestically. I'm not saying it is an official role, but sometimes decisions are bigger than one mere man. It is not outside the purview of the President to ask for advice or council.

What is your proposal then? I agree with the premise of "Power To The People". It is the very basis of what are country was founded on. Reduction in government sounds nice, but how do we go about accomplishing this in our present time? Any suggestions?

Pretty much the same things RP plans to do really, I generally keep my idealist focus to myself, such as my sterilization stuff :p which tends to create a target rich environment for me.

Cool. And I mean that with the utmost sincerity. I admire people who stand behind their principles. I applaud you.

I just wish more people would.

What I was referring to in my reply is: If it is no longer the case, then why mention it in the first place? So it doesn't invalidate my reply and shows that your reply was very misleading and was stated in a vain attempt to try and confuse. Which didn't happen by the way. You seem to try that alot but I can see right through it all.

The only official responsibility the Vice President has is to replace the President if needed and to preside over the Senate. Cheney's activities and statements are only official because the President allows them. Which is what I said.

Yes, but so is "evil politics". :p :)

:p

Mad Tony
03-09-08, 20:42
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/7596225.stmhttp://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/7596225.stm

McCain attacks media over Palin... and rightly so!

tlr online
03-09-08, 20:45
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/7596225.stmhttp://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/7596225.stm

McCain attacks media over Palin... and rightly so!

I just finished reading this article, and I have to agree, even tho I'm batting for the Obama camp. The outcome of this election will be decided by the media, who in typical fashion will spoon-feed the voters their usual diatribe of spin and propaganda.

SamReeves
03-09-08, 20:45
Let's just say when Bush called a certain reporter from the New York Times a "major league a-hole," he was dead on! Three anti-Palin pieces yesterday on the NYT.

haikudasai
03-09-08, 21:08
It depends on your personal beliefs then.
Like you mentioned, a women who is raped should not have to watch as this baby grows inside her.

I am a christian. And even though what has happened to that women is horrible and such an aweul thing to go through. . I believe that there is a reason for every single life that exists. And God has a plan and a purpose. I believe God can turn around some of the horrible situations and things that people do and use them for good.
My cousin Debbie is a result of a rape. And her mother kept her. She is a wonderful person and I love her. She has two beautiful children and 4 beautiful grand children who wouldn't be here .I can't imagine my little cousins not being here.

I know I posting sites earlier, but this is on abortion and rape

"I soon discovered that the aftermath of the abortion continued a long time after the memory of my rape had faded. I felt empty and horrible. Nobody told me about the emptiness and pain I would feel deep within, causing nightmares and deep depressions. They had all told me that after the abortion I would continue on with my life as if nothing had happened. ... I found that though I could forgive the man who raped me, I couldn't forgive myself for having the abortion."

article talking about the issue:
http://www.boundless.org/regulars/kaufman/a0000848.html

For example, it is commonly assumed that rape victims who become pregnant would naturally want abortions. But in the only major study of pregnant rape victims ever done, Dr. Sandra Makhorn found that 75 to 85 percent chose against abortion. This evidence alone should cause people to pause and reflect on the presumption that abortion is wanted or even best for sexual assault victims.

Several reasons are given for not aborting. First, approximately 70 percent of all women believe abortion is immoral, even though many feel it should be a legal choice for others. Approximately the same percentage believe abortion would be just another act of violence against their bodies and their children.




So, the baby should have it's life taken away? What kind of mentality would this promote? Just do what you please. That is ok to just kill a baby if you get pregnant...and don't want it. Again, it depends on your beliefs. Do you believe you are taking a human life

And as I said before. How would you be able to determine when life starts then? When the baby starts to resemble a human? That makes me sad. Is that when it's affirmed as a life. Should the law be able to make that sort of judgment? they decide when we are human...

I don't understand how the point can be argued.
It is clear to me and I know I'm never going to agree with anyone who is for any kind of abortion. It 's important to me. ..and I don't believe it is a "right" to end a life. And that it is a life growing inside a women. When life begins to form. Life begins! At the start

You are stopping a human life when you have an abortion.

I appreciate the quotes that you are showing, but the percentage is not that of 100. There are those that make the choice to abort the pregnancy.

I just think that the woman should have a choice to have the baby or to not have the baby. I don't think the woman should just deal with it or put it up for adoption (like I said in my previous post: There are a ton of children who are up for adoption. There are a ton of unwanted children. Why make more?).

(another scenario) I don't think that a woman and a man who are not ready for a baby, who use protection even, should be forced into keeping that child. What if they're not financially stable? What if they don't want to put it up for adoption?

If the stages of pregnancy are so early that it only resembles a blob of goo that it isn't complex enough to understand it's a living being.

Bustus
03-09-08, 21:09
McCain wants to stay in Iraq until the job is done, which doesn't neccessarily mean he wants to stay there for a hundred years.

While we're on that subject... What is the goal in Iraq?

Mad Tony
03-09-08, 21:15
While we're on that subject... What is the goal in Iraq?At the moment it's to get them back on their feet, which the coalition forces seem to be doing a good job of at the moment.

haikudasai
03-09-08, 21:15
While we're on that subject... What is the goal in Iraq?

Osama Bin Laden.



weak humor ;)

Ward Dragon
03-09-08, 21:37
Not true. Each VP was chosen for very different reasons. I was pointing out in the previous post that Biden was chosen primarily for his experience not as a reason to appeal to a certain gender of voters as is the case with Palin.

Palin was chosen because she's a conservative and she does have executive experience (in fact, she has more executive experience than Obama, Biden and McCain combined since they have never served in the executive branch). She's a very honest woman who fights corruption, works hard, loves her family, and comes across as an average person in a position to actually make things better because she fights for what she believes in. The fact that she's a woman is just an added bonus since that might appeal to a few voters (not me, since I only vote on issues, but probably some...).

Biden was an absolutely awful choice for Obama to make. Biden is a convicted plagiarist and a chronic liar. I don't want him anywhere near the presidency. Not to mention, Biden said some pretty bad things about Obama and his lack of experience during the Democratic primaries, whereas Palin has ranged from neutral to supportive of McCain prior to be chosen as VP. McCain was very wise to choose someone as VP who hasn't said anything against him and who he hasn't attacked during the primaries.

patriots88888
03-09-08, 22:09
Palin was chosen because she's a conservative and she does have executive experience (in fact, she has more executive experience than Obama, Biden and McCain combined since they have never served in the executive branch). .

They are good reasons but I am not buying the fact that they were the primary reason why she was chosen. I stand behind my belief that she was chosen primarily to gain the sympathetic vote from disgruntled Hillary supporters. ;) :)

And I also stand behind my belief that Obama made a much wiser and prudent choice in selecting Biden for his experience in areas that Obama is lacking. IMO it shows that Obama is taking into consideration America's best interests. :)

Mad Tony
03-09-08, 22:16
I've said this before and I'll say it again, a lot of Hilary supporters were gonna vote for McCain anyway. Don't forget, some of McCain's policies are not conservative. Most notably his policy on immigration.

Ward Dragon
03-09-08, 22:17
They are good reasons but I am not buying the fact that they were the primary reason why she was chosen. I stand behind my belief that she was chosen primarily to gain the sympathetic vote from disgruntled Hillary supporters. ;) :)

And why was Biden chosen? I think it's rather suspicious that Obama would pick an old white guy who doesn't even like him :pi:

Seriously though, I think that Palin is more than qualified to be VP, and choosing her was a brilliant move because she's honest, hard-working, and appeals to a large demographic of voters for being conservative and just an average person rather than an elitist lawyer-type. Maybe her gender played into McCain's choice, but so what? I'm not going to avoid voting for two perfectly qualified candidates, one of which I really like, just because there's a possibility that the other one considered her gender when choosing her as his running-mate.

I've said this before and I'll say it again, a lot of Hilary supporters were gonna vote for McCain anyway. Don't forget, some of McCain's policies are not conservative. Most notably his policy on immigration.

Exactly. McCain sorely needed to score points with the more conservative voters, which is the primary reason why he picked Palin. She's one of the few conservatives who hasn't publically bashed him, so why not pick her?

patriots88888
03-09-08, 22:24
And why was Biden chosen? I think it's rather suspicious that Obama would pick an old white guy who doesn't even like him :pi:

Seriously though, I think that Palin is more than qualified to be VP, and choosing her was a brilliant move because she's honest, hard-working, and appeals to a large demographic of voters for being conservative and just an average person rather than an elitist lawyer-type. Maybe her gender played into McCain's choice, but so what? I'm not going to avoid voting for two perfectly qualified candidates, one of which I really like, just because there's a possibility that the other one considered her gender when choosing her as his running-mate.

Sorry for the late edit. Please forgive me, I'm very tired ATM.

If you feel good about it then great, for you. And I know many others feel the same as you do. There are many, including myself who do not feel comfortable with the choice however. It will ultimately be decided Election Day at the polls in what I truly believe will be a close race. I just happen to believe that McCain's choice of Palin will play a key role in that decision, one way or another. My guess right now is that it won't be a favorable one for McCain or Palin.

Ward Dragon
03-09-08, 22:33
Sorry for the late edit. Please forgive me, I'm very tired ATM.

If you feel good about it then great, for you. And I know many others feel the same as you do. There are many, including myself who do not feel comfortable with the choice however. It will ultimately be decided Election Day at the polls in what I truly believe will be a close race. I just happen to believe that McCain's choice of Palin will play a key role in that decision, one way or another. My guess right now is that it won't be a favorable one for McCain or Palin.

Just give her a chance to prove herself :) She has 2 1/2 months to convince everyone that she was chosen because she's more than capable of doing the job. Should she totally mess up in that time, then I'm jumping ship :p

SamReeves
03-09-08, 22:52
Hmmm…

Joe Biden a proven establishment a-hole vs. Sarah Plain a small state governor who's a Mom. Guess who the public's going to indentify with in the debates? :whi:

Whatever your stance is, you have to admit Palin is the biggest threat the Democrats are looking at this year. And all the NOW angry women won't toot her horn, because she's a Republican woman. Women's rights groups are traditionally Democrat and highly biased. Get ready to see the hypocrisy in their organizations and the Democrats for that matter.

Ward Dragon
03-09-08, 22:55
Hmmm…

Joe Biden a proven establishment a-hole vs. Sarah Plain a small state governor who's a Mom. Guess who the public's going to indentify with in the debates? :whi:

Yeah, and all of these vicious attacks on her family will probably backfire. I know Obama has officially said that anyone attacking Palin's family does not represent his campaign (a very smart move on Obama's part, too...) but people might still get disgusted at the attacks and figure that the Democrats are behind it somehow.

Whatever you stance is, you have to admit Palin is the biggest threat the Democrats are looking at this year. And all the NOW angry women won't toot her horn, because she's a Republican woman. Women's rights groups are traditionally Democrat and highly biased. Get ready to see the hypocrisy in their organizations and the Democrats for that matter.

Exactly. I don't know where these people are coming from claiming it's such a massive insult that a strong and very likable conservative woman was chosen to be a VP candidate. Is it just because her pregnant daughter chose to keep the baby, and she herself kept a Downs Syndrome child? That's the impression the media is giving me :rolleyes: These angry people aren't insulted that Palin is a woman. They are insulted that she's conservative and pro-life.

I don't agree with Palin on every issue, but I really think that whoever disagrees with her needs to just come out and say what their real problem is rather than hiding behind a bunch of mindless bashing of her family, or accusations that McCain is sexist. Seriously, I have yet to hear a convincing argument for why she would be a bad vice president. So far all I have heard are insinuations that McCain is manipulative, jabs at her experience despite that she has more than all three of the other people running, complaints that she got an incompetent trooper fired after he failed to do his job, and a bunch of tasteless bashing of her kids.

SamReeves
03-09-08, 22:59
Yeah, and all of these vicious attacks on her family will probably backfire. I know Obama has officially said that anyone attacking Palin's family does not represent his campaign (a very smart move on Obama's part, too...) but people might still get disgusted at the attacks and figure that the Democrats are behind it somehow.

:vlol: Well, you have to look at the money trail. Move on dot org, George Sorros are all big supporters of the Democrats. With Obama taking in money from those folks, he's already quietly endorsing these attacks.

Yup, but I'm sure Palin expected this. The Dems play dirty tricks and she wouldn't have accepted the nomination without knowing that. However she's already proven to be resilient so far.

Ward Dragon
03-09-08, 23:12
:vlol: Well, you have to look at the money trail. Move on dot org, George Sorros are all big supporters of the Democrats. With Obama taking in money from those folks, he's already quietly endorsing these attacks.

Yeah, but he's smart enough to try to publically distance himself from it. This way he doesn't look like a mean attack-dog, plus he doesn't set the precedent for his own family to come into the spotlight (if I remember correctly, Obama himself was born to a 19-year old girl, his father was not a nice person, and he's cut himself off from his brother in China who seems like a decent guy. Not to mention his wife is nearly as annoying as Kerry's wife, saying inflammatory comments and damaging his campaign by getting people angry at him.)

Yup, but I'm sure Palin expected this. The Dems play dirty tricks and she wouldn't have accepted the nomination without knowing that. However she's already proven to be resilient so far.

Indeed. I admire her for withstanding this vitriol.

patriots88888
03-09-08, 23:19
Yup, but I'm sure Palin expected this. The Dems play dirty tricks and she wouldn't have accepted the nomination without knowing that. However she's already proven to be resilient so far.

I surely hope you are not generalizing here. You should know better than to think that it is just the Democrats who play "dirty tricks" and "sling mud." And I'm not talking about just this election in particulair. I'm talking about the history of elections in, let's say, the last 20 years or so. Please. :rolleyes:

Again, let me reiterate. I am on no sides ATM in this election. Just like to see fairness on all counts when statements like this are made. :)

Ward Dragon
03-09-08, 23:30
I surely hope you are not generalizing here. You should know better than to think that it is just the Democrats who play "dirty tricks" and "sling mud." And I'm not talking about just this election in particulair. I'm talking about the history of elections in, let's say, the last 20 years or so. Please. :rolleyes:

Again, let me reiterate. I am on no sides ATM in this election. Just like to see fairness on all counts when statements like this are made. :)

I think he's talking about the officials of the Democratic party, most of the news stations, and the insanely rich Democrats like George Soros that fund political ads (as opposed to normal people who are Democrats). In the entire time Obama has been running, I have not seen a fraction of bad things reported about him compared to the mud that has been thrown against Palin in the past few days.

patriots88888
03-09-08, 23:48
In the entire time Obama has been running, I have not seen a fraction of bad things reported about him compared to the mud that has been thrown against Palin in the past few days.

But there were some "bad things" levied at him. No? That was my only point here. The amount of which shouldn't make any difference. If it is wrong to do so many times, then it is equally wrong to do so one time.

These unfortunate things happen all the time in politics. :( It is sad but it definitely goes both ways without question. ;)

Ward Dragon
03-09-08, 23:54
But there were some "bad things" levied at him. No? That was my only point here. The amount of which shouldn't make any difference. If it is wrong to do so many times, then it is equally wrong to do so one time.

The only really bad stuff I can remember against Obama was mostly quotes of public statements made by his wife, minister, and other associates. It wasn't unsubstantiated rumors or lies, it was just actual things that these people have said and refuse to back down from (most troubling is that Weather Underground guy who is proud of the terrorist activities he performed several decades ago and wishes he could do more -- why the hell does Obama consider this guy to be an advisor? :eek:).

Those are political things and totally fair game. Completely different from picking on the candidate's children and coming up with some soap-opera plot about how the newborn baby was really Palin's grandkid or something equally idiotic :rolleyes:

These unfortunate things happen all the time in politics. :( It is sad but it definitely goes both ways without question. ;)

That is true. The Democrats seem to be in a much better position to get their attacks to the public, although I'm sure the Republicans would take advantage of such power if they had it instead.

Edit: It just occurred to me that I'm not even sure where the negative things about Obama came from -- Hillary or the Republicans? I actually think Hillary mentioned most of the stuff first before the Republicans caught onto it :p

patriots88888
04-09-08, 00:07
The only really bad stuff I can remember against Obama was mostly quotes of public statements made by his wife, minister, and other associates.

But what about the, for lack of a better way of describing it, (I'm really tired) "the name issue". Where he was ridiculed for having the middle name "Hussein" and because his last name sounded like "Osama" making reference to Osama Bin Laden in doing so.

Granted that these are minor compared to the involvement of family members so please don't think I am equating them in any way, but they are still personal "attacks", even if they are in a ridiculous light. I don't see how they can be anything but personal. Are "attacks" on one's name fair game also?

Ward Dragon
04-09-08, 00:11
But what about the, for lack of a better way of describing it, (I'm really tired) "the name issue". Where he was ridiculed for having the middle name "Hussein" and because his last name sounded like "Osama" making reference to Osama Bin Laden in doing so.

Granted that these are minor compared to the involvement of family members so please don't think I am equating them in any way, but they are still personal "attacks", even if they are in a ridiculous light. I don't see how they can be anything but personal. Are "attacks" on one's name fair game also?

Okay, those attacks were so silly that I forgot about them :p but you're right. There have been some stupid attacks against Obama as well.

patriots88888
04-09-08, 00:20
Wow. I must admit that I was really reaching with that one. :p They were so silly that they were almost negligible.

To be fair I must admit that there have been much more personal "mud slinging" tactics thrown at Palin and at the Republican's as a result so far. Two more months and countless others on the horizon, both ways I am sure. :(

silver_wolf
04-09-08, 01:22
http://i171.photobucket.com/albums/u307/cjvelg/6373.jpg
before I suffer the hellfire of every republican on here, IT'S A JOKE!

Andariel
04-09-08, 01:27
I just know I can't vote for someone who is ignorant about homosexuality. I'm not gay but I have wonderful gay friends. They're people just like us and I don't see why Republicans have a problem with them having equal rights. Do conservatives not believe in progress of the mind? I need and what the country needs is a President with a progressive and unifying mind.

patriots88888
04-09-08, 01:34
http://i171.photobucket.com/albums/u307/cjvelg/6373.jpg
before I suffer the hellfire of every republican on here, IT'S A JOKE!

Well technically I am a registered Republican but you will receive no such Hellfire from me. I like it, and we all need more humour like this in our lives. :)

Way to go silver_wolf. :tmb: :D

pizzabob18
04-09-08, 01:40
I just know I can't vote for someone who is ignorant about homosexuality. I'm not gay but I have wonderful gay friends. They're people just like us and I don't see why Republicans have a problem with them having equal rights. Do conservatives not believe in progress of the mind? I need and what the country needs is a President with a progressive and unifying mind.

My thoughts exactly! I'm not gay either, but they deserve to be treated like human beings rather than sinners and outcasts in society (which is what most conservative politicians and people view them as). Views like that are very old fashioned, and they need to wake up to the present.

Dixie
04-09-08, 02:01
Um. What rights do gays not have that everyone else has?

silver_wolf
04-09-08, 02:20
Well technically I am a registered Republican but you will receive no such Hellfire from me. I like it, and we all need more humour like this in our lives. :)

Way to go silver_wolf. :tmb: :D
well thank you!:D

takamotosan
04-09-08, 02:24
Um. What rights do gays not have that everyone else has?

ummm i can't get married in texas.

Andariel
04-09-08, 02:27
Um. What rights do gays not have that everyone else has?
Wow. You really should educate yourself. Some examples would be the benefits that come with marriage (filing joint income tax returns with the IRS and state taxing authorities, inheriting a share of your spouse's estate, receiving Social Security, Medicare, and disability benefits for spouses, obtaining insurance benefits through a spouse's employer, taking family leave to care for your spouse during an illness, visiting your spouse in a hospital intensive care unit or during restricted visiting hours in other parts of a medical facility, making medical decisions for your spouse if he or she becomes incapacitated and unable to express wishes for treatment, making burial or other final arrangements, automatically renewing leases signed by your spouse, receiving family rates for health, homeowners', auto, and other types of insurance, receiving crime victims' recovery benefits if your spouse is the victim of a crime, etc.)


There's also serving in the army even if they're found to be gay, protections from harm, etc.

Bowie
04-09-08, 03:13
Wow. You really should educate yourself. Some examples would be the benefits that come with marriage (filing joint income tax returns with the IRS and state taxing authorities, inheriting a share of your spouse's estate, receiving Social Security, Medicare, and disability benefits for spouses, obtaining insurance benefits through a spouse's employer, taking family leave to care for your spouse during an illness, visiting your spouse in a hospital intensive care unit or during restricted visiting hours in other parts of a medical facility, making medical decisions for your spouse if he or she becomes incapacitated and unable to express wishes for treatment, making burial or other final arrangements, automatically renewing leases signed by your spouse, receiving family rates for health, homeowners', auto, and other types of insurance, receiving crime victims' recovery benefits if your spouse is the victim of a crime, etc.)


There's also serving in the army even if they're found to be gay, protections from harm, etc.
But don't forget the counterargument. Gays are ruining the sanctity of marriage... unlike divorce :rolleyes:. Gays can't have children which is the ultimate purpose of marriage... unlike infertile or old couples :rolleyes:. Gays turn adopted children gay... unlike their straight parents who didn't turn them gay :rolleyes:. Gays are forbidden in the Bible... well at least until Jesus came along and made it even more ambiguous than it already was, which is definitely relevant :rolleyes:

Dixie
04-09-08, 03:14
ummm i can't get married in texas.

Well that is because Texas defines marriage as the union of a man and woman.

Honestly, I am in NO way trying to be rude here. This is a serious question: gay people can be together, but why do they need the technicality of marriage?

I guess I'm confused because I actually have two gay friends who are against gay marriage.

haikudasai
04-09-08, 14:04
I wasn't impressed with Palin's speech last night.

How many times are you going to tell us that you're a "hockey mom" or a "good ole gal".

I loved that the announcer muffled random stuff about her husband and then whispered that he worked for an oil company. That was just odd but funny.

Seriously though, you're not a good ole girl. You're not just a regular hockey mom any more. I want to know what you can bring to the table as a VP.

I just don't like her tactics. Using her son going into the military, her baby with Down's Syndrome as a platform; to name a few.

tranniversary119
04-09-08, 14:15
I wasn't impressed with Palin's speech last night.

How many times are you going to tell us that you're a "hockey mom" or a "good ole gal".

I loved that the announcer muffled random stuff about her husband and then whispered that he worked for an oil company. That was just odd but funny.

Seriously though, you're not a good ole girl. You're not just a regular hockey mom any more. I want to know what you can bring to the table as a VP.

I just don't like her tactics. Using her son going into the military, her baby with Down's Syndrome as a platform; to name a few.

Not to mention her constant attacks on Obama.She was funny but Humour doesn't end a War with Iraq and rising gas prices.

Goose
04-09-08, 14:34
Not to mention her constant attacks on Obama.She was funny but Humour doesn't end a War with Iraq and rising gas prices.

And neither will Obama. Those are two things neither parties can do.

As for Homosexual rights, thats more about whos your state representative, vote for whos pro same sex marriage, even if obama wins, doesnt mean the govenor of texas will allow same sex marriage, and if McCain wins it doesnt mean that the next govenor will refuse same sex marriage surely?

What do you think Obamas spiritual advisor, The Rev. (god damn america) wright, thinks about homosexual marriage?

Heckler
04-09-08, 14:36
Who wants to get married in Texas anyways....Thats what Vegas is for...

petujaymz
04-09-08, 14:37
Heard the latest?

Turns out her unmarried pregnant daughter is a lesbian.

:wve:

An hour or so after posting the above I remembered that John McCain's daughter really is a lesbian.

Go on, Google it...

Unmarried pregnant daughters, lesbian daughters.

What next?

EDIT - Wrong! Dick Cheney's the one with a lesbo daughter.

:wve:

Goose
04-09-08, 14:41
Who wants to get married in Texas anyways....Thats what Vegas is for...

Exactly lol.

But it doesnt matter who you vote for, the people in Texas dont want gay marriage, so no matter if you have a Homosexual Democrat govenor of texas, it wont happen there.

Edit - Whos Chief justice of Texas?

SamReeves
04-09-08, 16:17
I wasn't impressed with Palin's speech last night.

How many times are you going to tell us that you're a "hockey mom" or a "good ole gal".

I loved that the announcer muffled random stuff about her husband and then whispered that he worked for an oil company. That was just odd but funny.

Seriously though, you're not a good ole girl. You're not just a regular hockey mom any more. I want to know what you can bring to the table as a VP.

I just don't like her tactics. Using her son going into the military, her baby with Down's Syndrome as a platform; to name a few.

Well dog crap! She's a real woman who has real life issues. She is someone that most Americans can identify with and yes the Democrats are quite scared of her ability to connect with the public. She clearly demonstrated her experience in executive decisions as governor and mayor. As Rudy Giuliani said earlier Obama has zero executive experience.



What do you think Obamas spiritual advisor, The Rev. (god damn america) wright, thinks about homosexual marriage?

He'll probably praise the concept in as long as homosexual members put money into the offering plate. There's a big difference between religion and completely selling yourself out.

Not to mention her constant attacks on Obama.She was funny but Humour doesn't end a War with Iraq and rising gas prices.

Well if you haven't noticed there's an election going on. The Obama campaign is going to derail soon me thinks. Why else would they throw so many rocks at Palin unless they thought she was a real threat?

In any case…

ALASKA GIRLS KICK ASS!!!

Mr.Burns
04-09-08, 16:23
Well dog crap! She's a real woman who has real life issues. She is someone that most Americans can identify with and yes the Democrats are quite scared of her ability to connect with the public. She clearly demonstrated her experience in executive decisions as governor and mayor. As Rudy Giuliani said earlier Obama has zero executive experience.


Neither did Kennedy.

Goose
04-09-08, 16:25
Neither did Kennedy.

Giuliani, sounds like a name from Goodfellas.

Bowie
04-09-08, 16:35
Elections are so ****ed. WTF do "executive experience" or "connecting with everyday Americans" have to do with the price of fish... or oil for that matter?

When people start voting on issues and not for personalities, THEN maybe THEN ******* countries might be healed.

Mad Tony
04-09-08, 16:37
So you don't think it's good that some politicians can connect with everyday Americans?

Goose
04-09-08, 16:38
Elections are so ****ed. WTF do "executive experience" or "connecting with everyday Americans" have to do with the price of fish... or oil for that matter?

When people start voting on issues and not for personalities, THEN maybe THEN ******* countries might be healed.

Lol, are you actively looking at how a president will lower the price of fish?

SamReeves
04-09-08, 16:56
Hey I'd like a lower price of salmon, because the liberals have PROHIBITED fishing of Northwest salmon. Yes, I think the Governor knows all about that too.

Mona Sax
04-09-08, 16:57
Honestly, I am in NO way trying to be rude here. This is a serious question: gay people can be together, but why do they need the technicality of marriage?
Why do straight people? ;)

I don't understand how it could have a negative impact on the 'sancitity of marriage', to be honest. Straight people wouldn't lose a thing, they could still marry the person they love. They would absolutely not be affected by gay couples being able to do the same.


Anyway, Sarah Palin's speech... brilliantly delivered, with lots of panache and humor. I did miss content, though, she said nothing about how she plans to solve any problems. It was also very negative - much more anti-Obama than pro-McCain. As I mentioned before, I expect candidates to give me reasons why I should vote for them, not why their opponent is evil personified. It was a very smart move, though, since focusing on her political opinions, which are much more extreme than McCain's, could put off many independent voters, especially women.

interstellardave
04-09-08, 17:00
I didn't hear too many specifics from either party, to be honest. It was mostly all catch-phrases and sweeping generalizations from both camps as far as I could tell.

Mad Tony
04-09-08, 17:01
I did miss content, though, she said nothing about how she plans to solve any problems. Same with Obama.

domina
04-09-08, 17:03
ALASKA GIRLS KICK ASS!!!

And she's hot, too! :jmp:



And yes, that's all I feel compelled to add to the conversation. 'Cause no one else is saying it and I know I can't be alone there. :p

Goose
04-09-08, 17:04
And she's hot, too! :jmp:



And yes, that's all I feel compelled to add to the conversation. 'Cause no one else is saying it and I know I can't be alone there. :p

lol, shes playing the milf card.

Mad Tony
04-09-08, 17:05
And she's hot, too! :jmp:



And yes, that's all I feel compelled to add to the conversation. 'Cause no one else is saying it and I know I can't be alone there. :pYeah, she is pretty hot. :cln: :D

http://s.wsj.net/public/resources/images/OB-CE739_palin__NS_20080829124451.jpg

That's not the reason why I support her though. I like her conservative views, which make up for McCain's lack of them.

Mona Sax
04-09-08, 17:09
I didn't hear too many specifics from either party, to be honest. It was mostly all catch-phrases and sweeping generalizations from both camps as far as I could tell.Yup, that's true. As much as I'd like to hear more honest and detailed plans, I guess that would come across as too boring for convention audiences.

What also bothers me is the blatant lies. McCain and Palin know exactly Obama doesn't plan to raise taxes for most Americans, Obama and Biden know exactly McCain made his remarks about the state of the economy before the current mortgage crisis. But they all know their followers will gladly believe anything that allows them to 'rationalize' their hatred and many people won't bother to dig deeper, so it won't ever stop. I mean, just take a look at this very thread.

SamReeves
04-09-08, 17:11
lol, shes playing the milf card.

:vlol: She is, and yea, of course men are going to vote for an attractive woman! :D

But this Alaska girl outlined last night a plan to bring Alaskan oil and natural gas to the energy table. She has also vowed to take and use east coast coal as an energy source too along with wind, hydro and solar. More importantly she is committed to getting off foreign oil with real solutions. She is quite aware of the energy race that is happening with Russia and China.

The only thing I hate Mona are more taxes and intrusions of government into my life. Did you see how many different faces there were in the RNC floor last night, or did you conveniently forget that? The Republican party is color blind and they welcome those who share similar values.

Mona Sax
04-09-08, 17:21
See? Liberal candidate - 'more taxes.' It's a knee-jerk reaction, just like the opposite Republican - 'warmonger' one. Besides, I doubt any government in the last 100 years, maybe with the exception of the McCarthy era, has intruded in your life as much as the current one has.

I don't think it's surprising that the GOP welcomes those who agree with them, any party does. Even the Taliban do. What I'd really like would be a party that welcomes everyone.

Goose
04-09-08, 17:23
See? Liberal candidate - 'more taxes.' It's a knee-jerk reaction, just like the opposite Republican - 'warmonger' one. Besides, I doubt any government in the last 100 years, maybe with the exception of the McCarthy era, has intruded in your life as much as the current one has.

I don't think it's surprising that the GOP welcomes those who agree with them, any party does. Even the Taliban do. What I'd really like would be a party that welcomes everyone.

That has nothing to do with Left or Right wing governments, look at England, were under a left wing government and we've become a 'big brother' nation, cctv on every corner, and folders full of information due after any contact you may have with the government.

Just dont expect a real police officer to come and help you when your being robbed.

Mona Sax
04-09-08, 17:26
Yup, agreed again. I never understood why on Earth a Labour government would support spying on citizens and start wars that ultimately backfired.

Goose
04-09-08, 17:28
Yup, agreed again. I never understood why on Earth a Labour government would support spying on citizens and start wars that ultimately backfired.

lol, and thats wars in the literal sense, Bosnia, Kosovo, Iraq, Afghanistan and sierra leone. Robert Mugabes lucky were in Afghan and iraq at the moment, his people are'nt though.

We serously had it better under the conservatives.

Mona Sax
04-09-08, 17:32
Now that I doubt. The Iron Lady didn't get her nickname for no reason.

Mad Tony
04-09-08, 17:33
Now that I doubt. The Iron Lady didn't get her nickname for no reason.What's wrong with Thatcher? A strong conservative like her is just what this country needs at the moment.

Goose
04-09-08, 17:35
Now that I doubt. The Iron Lady didn't get her nickname for no reason.

The iron lady? Iv never heard john major called that!

Or are you refering to Thatcher? Who left officer when i was about 2? She only got us into two wars, and that was over 10 years. Labour doubled that in half the time.

Mad Tony
04-09-08, 17:37
What bothers me about Labour is how they manage domestic issues.

Mona Sax
04-09-08, 17:38
@ Goose: :D Yeah, it's obviously Thatcher I'm talking about. As I said, I wasn't too happy with Blair, either.

@ Mad Tony: Oh, for ****'s sake. You know my views, you know my opinion about unfounded, generalized remarks, so I won't engage in silly 'you're wrong!' - 'no, you are!' 'discussions'. Give me a reason why you think Thatcher is better than I think, and I'll gladly reply.

Goose
04-09-08, 17:39
What bothers me about Labour is how they manage domestic issues.

What bothers me about Labour is that there still in office!

Goose
04-09-08, 17:40
Oh, for ****'s sake. You know my views, you know my opinion about unfounded, generalized remarks, so I won't engage in silly 'you're wrong!' - 'no, you are!' 'discussions'. Give me a reason why you think Thatcher is better than I think, and I'll gladly reply.

How should i know? Like i said, she left office in 1990? We're both to young to know that, but England had less wars and more cops=less crime under Major.

Sorry for the double post.

Mona Sax
04-09-08, 17:41
Wasn't aimed at you. Sometimes the internet's too fast for me.

Mad Tony
04-09-08, 17:42
@ Mad Tony: Oh, for ****'s sake. You know my views, you know my opinion about unfounded, generalized remarks, so I won't engage in silly 'you're wrong!' - 'no, you are!' 'discussions'. Give me a reason why you think Thatcher is better than I think, and I'll gladly reply.I don't know your views on Thatcher. All I know is that you don't like her but not why.

I like Thatcher because I agree with her on a lot of things, that's all. Plus, she was tough.

Anyway, I don't see any "'you're wrong!' - 'no, you are!'" here. All I did was ask what's wrong with Thatcher.

What bothers me about Labour is that there still in office!LMAO, yep, I agree. :D If they win the next election then I will loose all faith in the general public.

Goose
04-09-08, 17:45
Wasn't aimed at you. Sometimes the internet's too fast for me.

i see, me to hence the double post!

LMAO, yep, I agree. :D If they win the next election then I will loose all faith in the general public.

I voted for Boris Johnson as Mayor of London, and im pleased! I think that explains the sort of desperation we are feeling here!

SamReeves
04-09-08, 17:49
See? Liberal candidate - 'more taxes.' It's a knee-jerk reaction, just like the opposite Republican - 'warmonger' one. Besides, I doubt any government in the last 100 years, maybe with the exception of the McCarthy era, has intruded in your life as much as the current one has.

I'm not happy with the expansion of government or intrusions of privacy either. But I still don't see a concrete plan from the other side on how to reduce it, therefore reducing spending and taxes.

I don't think it's surprising that the GOP welcomes those who agree with them, any party does. Even the Taliban do. What I'd really like would be a party that welcomes everyone.

That would be the communist party IMO, where there's a one party system that either welcomes or mandates everyone to be part of it. Yes I bicker and point fingers at the Democrats, but to God I hope they will always be around. I never want a one party system in this country.

jackles
04-09-08, 17:50
The iron lady? Iv never heard john major called that!

Or are you refering to Thatcher? Who left officer when i was about 2? She only got us into two wars, and that was over 10 years. Labour doubled that in half the time.


She was conservative. The trouble is that most of you are too young to remember conservative 'rule'.

However this has nothing to do with the current topic. I am interested in the whole cult of the leader that exists. We have seen the constant parading of babies, adopted kids etc etc. Where are the politics?

Paul H
04-09-08, 17:55
Yup, agreed again. I never understood why on Earth a Labour government would support spying on citizens and start wars that ultimately backfired.

That is easily explained. Tony Blair and Gordon Brown are both Bilderbergers. Once politicians are sucked into that secret society, whatever party they belong to, and whatever it used to stand for, becomes irrelevant. From that point onwards, they just do as they are told.

Mona Sax
04-09-08, 17:56
@ SamReeves: Mandate somebody to be part of a group? Hell no, not in a million years. I'm as opposed to that kind of system as much as you are, individuality is maybe the most important thing there is for me. I wouldn't tie it to one ideology like communism, though (just one example - the most extreme right wing regime ever, Hitler's Third Reich).

Mr.Burns
04-09-08, 18:01
:vlol: She is, and yea, of course men are going to vote for an attractive woman! :D

But this Alaska girl outlined last night a plan to bring Alaskan oil and natural gas to the energy table. She has also vowed to take and use east coast coal as an energy source too along with wind, hydro and solar. More importantly she is committed to getting off foreign oil with real solutions. She is quite aware of the energy race that is happening with Russia and China.

The only thing I hate Mona are more taxes and intrusions of government into my life. Did you see how many different faces there were in the RNC floor last night, or did you conveniently forget that? The Republican party is color blind and they welcome those who share similar values.


And this is part of the reason why I have lost faith in the Republican party. DRILL! DRILL! DRILL! :hea: Anyone with a brain and a little time to do some research will realize that drilling won't make much if any dent in gas prices. I'm all for little government and low taxes but a party that's obsessed with oil and an official religion (sorry but I'm a strong advocate for the separation of church and state) is not for me. Of course the Democrats aren't much better. It's a shame Ron Paul isn't running under a third party ticket.

Paul H
04-09-08, 18:07
It's a shame Ron Paul isn't running under a third party ticket.

He would have been the best president your country has ever had. What a missed opportunity. :(

interstellardave
04-09-08, 18:07
@ SamReeves: Mandate somebody to be part of a group? Hell no, not in a million years. I'm as opposed to that kind of system as much as you are, individuality is maybe the most important thing there is for me. I wouldn't tie it to one ideology like communism, though (just one example - the most extreme right wing regime ever, Hitler's Third Reich).

I never understood why Nazis are so often called "Right Wing"... it was, after all, by name: National Socialism. I suppose because they fought Soviet Russia people put them on opposite poles; they were quite alike, however.

Draco
04-09-08, 18:07
In fairness, nobody really expects drilling to lower prices, they expect our dependence on importing oil to go down.

TRhalloween
04-09-08, 18:08
Smug sarcastic demon!

Draco
04-09-08, 18:09
He would have been the best president your country has ever had. What a missed opportunity. :(

He still can be, if not this 4 years, maybe the next. Even without any real press coverage he has a major support base and won several states. He beat McCain in my state and several others.

petujaymz
04-09-08, 18:10
Have you heard the latest?

Palin goes clubbin' with McCain every night.

They do drugs 'n' everything.

:wve:

Mad Tony
04-09-08, 18:10
That is easily explained. Tony Blair and Gordon Brown are both Bilderbergers. Once politicians are sucked into that secret society, whatever party they belong to, and whatever it used to stand for, becomes irrelevant. From that point onwards, they just do as they are told.Please can we keep this thread free of conspiracies? I have no problem with you being against Gordon Brown and Tony Blair. I actually don't approve of them either, but just because they attended some meeting doesn't mean they're bad prime ministers. However, the way that they have run the country the last decade or so does IMO.

He would have been the best president your country has ever had. What a missed opportunity. :(Even better than the likes of FDR, Abraham Lincoln and George Washington?

Mr.Burns
04-09-08, 18:19
Even better than the likes of FDR, Abraham Lincoln and George Washington?

The potential is certainly there. Ron would actually follow the Constitution to the letter. Something we haven't seen in recent years.

@Paul: Yup, a shame indeed but like Draco said, in four years, who knows.

Goose
04-09-08, 18:20
That is easily explained. Tony Blair and Gordon Brown are both Bilderbergers. Once politicians are sucked into that secret society, whatever party they belong to, and whatever it used to stand for, becomes irrelevant. From that point onwards, they just do as they are told.
He's right! They are both Shmucken-wacker-giblets, who worship the grand schmuck, bringer of the new world order.

Even better than the likes of FDR, Abraham Lincoln and George Washington?
George washington and Franklin D Roosevelt?! They were freemasons, teh NWO is teh evil lulz.

She was conservative. The trouble is that most of you are too young to remember conservative 'rule'.

However this has nothing to do with the current topic. I am interested in the whole cult of the leader that exists. We have seen the constant parading of babies, adopted kids etc etc. Where are the politics?

Lol, i know she was conservative. But she wasnt the last conservative priminister, Major was.

interstellardave
04-09-08, 18:24
Please can we keep this thread free of conspiracies? I have no problem with you being against Gordon Brown and Tony Blair. I actually don't approve of them either, but just because they attended some meeting doesn't mean they're bad prime ministers. However, the way that they have run the country the last decade or so does IMO.

I believe that these societies do have influence, but not as much as some of the conspiracies say. I've heard some incredibly outrageous things that I just can't believe to be true...

Secret ceremonies attended by former presidents where they give their loyalty to Satan. :rolleyes:

Wild parties in D.C. where underaged boys and girls are openly abused sexually by Politicians (even Bush Sr. supposedly--while he was president) and, sometimes, their wives. :rolleyes:

And let's not even talk about the Alien Reptile-Race conspiracies... :p

Mona Sax
04-09-08, 18:25
I never understood why Nazis are so often called "Right Wing"... it was, after all, by name: National Socialism. I suppose because they fought Soviet Russia people put them on opposite poles; they were quite alike, however.
China is, by name, a People's Republic, as is North Korea (which is even 'Democratic'). I think the nazis had about as much to do with socialism (which could be summed up as 'all for one, one for all') as Soviet Russia had with Marx' communism. I define the nazis as right wing because they relied heavily on 'traditional' roots (nationalism, their ideal of the Aryan übermensch) while oppressing all that weren't like them (jews, black people, gays, foreigners, Catholics, political opponents, etc.).

I don't want any backlash, so I want to make it clear that I'm not comparing conservatives to nazis. There's a huge difference between disagreeing with others and killing people because you disagree with them. After all, there's a difference between a liberal and a member of the German RAF (Rote Armee Fraktion, extreme left wing terrorists during the '70s), too. Anyway, you'll see the same pattern in significant parts of modern-day conservatism. Strong nationalism, strong beliefs, opposition to immigrants, muslims, gays, liberals.

Mad Tony
04-09-08, 18:29
I believe that these societies do have influence, but not as much as some of the conspiracies say. I've heard some incredibly outrageous things that I just can't believe to be true...

Secret ceremonies attended by former presidents where they give their loyalty to Satan. :rolleyes:

Wild parties in D.C. where underaged boys and girls are openly abused sexually by Politicians (even Bush Sr. supposedly--while he was president) and, sometimes, their wives. :rolleyes:

And let's not even talk about the Alien Reptile-Race conspiracies... :pLol, yeah, I heard about the alien reptile race thing. :p


George washington and Franklin D Roosevelt?! They were freemasons, teh NWO is teh evil lulz.
Oh yeah. How silly of me to forget that. It just puts those two men in such a different light! Down with Lincoln!

:p

China is, by name, a People's Republic, as is North Korea (which is even 'Democratic'). I think the nazis had about as much to do with socialism (which could be summed up as 'all for one, one for all') as Soviet Russia had with Marx' communism. I define the Nazis as right wing because they relied heavily on 'traditional' roots (nationalism, their ideal of the Aryan übermensch) while oppressing all that weren't like them (jews, black people, gays, foreigners, Catholics, political opponents, etc.).But some of the factors of Nazi Germany weren't right, such as their large intruding government. (by right I mean on the political spectrum)

interstellardave
04-09-08, 18:30
@ MONA ^^^ Agreed... but the Nazis did practice Socialism to a heavy degree as well. Hitler once said (I'm paraphrasing) "The Soviets look to Socialize Production... we will take it a step further, we will Socialize People". And that's what made them so scary, IMO, because that's just what they did. Even the "Ayran" German people weren't free--especially not the youth; if Hitler had stayed in power who knows how the face of Germany would have changed when the Hitler youth would have grown up fully in that environment?

haikudasai
04-09-08, 18:30
Well dog crap! She's a real woman who has real life issues. She is someone that most Americans can identify with and yes the Democrats are quite scared of her ability to connect with the public. She clearly demonstrated her experience in executive decisions as governor and mayor. As Rudy Giuliani said earlier Obama has zero executive experience.

I don't think for a second that she doesn't realize that amping up the whole "Oh howdy, I'm a regular gal just like you!" is going to help her. It's a classic move. I give her credit for taking it... but I don't buy it.

I don't believe in what she believes in. I'm tired of hearing about her family. I want to know what she plans to bring as a VP.

Now that her son is going to the military to get those people to think she's on the same level with them... he'll probably get some level of special treatment because he's higher profile than the average American soldiers out there. Similar to Prince Harry, but not the same.

I, especially, don't like that she brought up her baby with Down's Syndrome and stated that people with special needs children will have a friend and advocate. What is she going to do? What does she want done? Just so people don't look differently at the special needs population?

I'm guessing she'll shell out a few thousand to the Special Olympics and call it a day.

I'm definitely not on either side right now. I just wish she would stop amping up the family. Stop making half your speech about your husband being a professional snow blower or whatever.

Same goes for both parties ... I want to know what you will do.

ALASKA GIRLS KICK ASS!!!

oh my.

Mona Sax
04-09-08, 18:31
If you want to force your beliefs on others, you got to have an all-encompassing government. That has nothing to do with left or right, but rather with your need to control people.

Mona Sax
04-09-08, 18:36
@ MONA ^^^ Agreed... but the Nazis did practice Socialism to a heavy degree as well. Hitler once said (I'm paraphrasing) "The Soviets look to Socialize Production... we will take it a step further, we will Socialize People". And that's what made them so scary, IMO, because that's just what they did. Even the "Ayran" German people weren't free--especially not the youth; if Hitler had stayed in power who knows how the face of Germany would have changed when the Hitler youth would have grown up fully in that environment?
I don't even want to think about that.

Socialism isn't dangerous per se, IMO, not more so than conservatism. Those are just worldwiews. It's what you decide to do with it that can be extremely destructive, whether you are going to force your system and your morals on others or whether you give everybody a choice.

interstellardave
04-09-08, 18:42
I don't even want to think about that.

Socialism isn't dangerous per se, IMO, not more so than conservatism. Those are just worldwiews. It's what you decide to do with it that can be extremely destructive, whether you are going to force your system and your morals on others or whether you give everybody a choice.

I think the problem is with the labels "Left" and "Right", 'cause the Nazis and Soviets are always used as the poles... Right and Left, respectively. I guess, to me, it doesn't matter what you call it because they were so extreme that they actually went full circle and had many similarities--especially if you were oppressed by them (you wouldn't care about ideolgy then!). Left and Right in our current Western societies aren't nearly so extreme, so they are quite different from those historical examples--and we should view them differently (which, I realize, you have already said in another post). ;)

Goose
04-09-08, 19:03
@ MONA ^^^ Agreed... but the Nazis did practice Socialism to a heavy degree as well. Hitler once said (I'm paraphrasing) "The Soviets look to Socialize Production... we will take it a step further, we will Socialize People". And that's what made them so scary, IMO, because that's just what they did. Even the "Ayran" German people weren't free--especially not the youth; if Hitler had stayed in power who knows how the face of Germany would have changed when the Hitler youth would have grown up fully in that environment?

Remember that the Nazis were very friendly with Russia and its soviet government before 1941, there ideals couldnt have been that different. And also it was the 'nationalism' (which seems to be a dirty word now), that has kept the United Kingdom alive through two world wars, and was one of the main reasons we stood up and fought in both world wars, to give another country the right to keep its own identity.

SamReeves
04-09-08, 19:11
I don't think for a second that she doesn't realize that amping up the whole "Oh howdy, I'm a regular gal just like you!" is going to help her. It's a classic move. I give her credit for taking it... but I don't buy it.

She was a fulltime mother before becoming mayor of Wasilla, Alaska, and then governor. She was a small business owner and also did a stint in television news. Isn't that more like your average Joe as opposed to Obama's privileged Ivy-League upbringing? How about Biden? How do they connect with the average American?

I don't believe in what she believes in. I'm tired of hearing about her family. I want to know what she plans to bring as a VP.

Did you listen to the speech at all? She wants to up production of Alaska's natural gas, oil, east coast coal, increase nuclear, solar, wind and hydro. She's 100% against Iran acquiring nuclear weapons. She wants to keep taxes low and reduce government. Yes she wants to be an advocate to children of special needs, and by golly it is a personal issue to her. She thinks alike McCain to use the veto to cut out pork and she did as governor.

Now that her son is going to the military to get those people to think she's on the same level with them... he'll probably get some level of special treatment because he's higher profile than the average American soldiers out there. Similar to Prince Harry, but not the same.

Sometimes you go into the fight, sometimes you stay state side in support roles. Are you a lesser military man or woman because you don't see shrapnel? I am highly offended by your comments about her son and all military people for that matter.

I, especially, don't like that she brought up her baby with Down's Syndrome and stated that people with special needs children will have a friend and advocate. What is she going to do? What does she want done? Just so people don't look differently at the special needs population?

Honestly is she going to be malicious towards other babies with Down's Syndrome? How about some compassion?

I'm guessing she'll shell out a few thousand to the Special Olympics and call it a day.

Wow, that's called philanthropy? Giving to good causes? I've given, how about you?

I'm definitely not on either side right now. I just wish she would stop amping up the family. Stop making half your speech about your husband being a professional snow blower or whatever.

Same goes for both parties ... I want to know what you will do.

And how do you feel about the trotting of Michele Obama and family out on stage? Is that so bad? I'm glad Obama has put his family out there for the public to see as well. However your bias seems rather pointed towards Sarah Palin because she's probably not a liberal woman.

Paul H
04-09-08, 19:22
Please can we keep this thread free of conspiracies?

As I told you only very recently, don't waste your time telling me what not to post.

Even better than the likes of FDR, Abraham Lincoln and George Washington?

Yes, much better than all of them combined.

Mad Tony
04-09-08, 19:23
Yes, much better than all of them combined.Ok then, what exactly makes him better than all of them combined?

And please don't say because George Washington and FDR were Freemasons.

Paul H
04-09-08, 19:38
Secret ceremonies attended by former presidents where they give their loyalty to Satan. :rolleyes:

That is almost true. It's actually Molech, not Satan, they worship at Bohemian Grove.

Wild parties in D.C. where underaged boys and girls are openly abused sexually by Politicians (even Bush Sr. supposedly--while he was president) and, sometimes, their wives. :rolleyes:Regarding Bush Sr, you might find a few interesting links by Googling the name "Brice Taylor".

And let's not even talk about the Alien Reptile-Race conspiracies... :pYes, that one is just silly.

haikudasai
04-09-08, 19:39
Sometimes you go into the fight, sometimes you stay state side in support roles. Are you a lesser military man or woman because you don't see shrapnel? I am highly offended by your comments about her son and all military people for that matter.

I never said anything regarding her son being kept stateside for support. I said that he will be well looked after while overseas because he could easily be made a target due to his high profile mother. That's what I meant, that's why I used Prince Harry. Just for the higher profile and targetting.

Honestly is she going to be malicious towards other babies with Down's Syndrome? How about some compassion?

I don't really understand where you came up with this. I'm saying I don't understand why she's using it as a platform when she's gave no background for what she's going to do for these people.

A family member of mine is mental handicapped and it's sad to see the faces people give her. I just don't like when people make a comment but don't back it up with any plan on making it better. Like she did last night.

Wow, that's called philanthropy? Giving to good causes? I've given, how about you?

Wow, yes I do. I'm saying that is that what she may do and then say that's how she helped special needs... She was vague on the front but got a large amount of applause.

And how do you feel about the trotting of Michele Obama and family out on stage? Is that so bad? I'm glad Obama has put his family out there for the public to see as well. However your bias seems rather pointed towards Sarah Palin because she's probably not a liberal woman.

Wrong. I don't agree with many things she's for and I don't understand her constant need to talk about her family and their every single hobby.

The biggest thing that I do not agree with her on is her outlook towards homosexuals. Which Obama beats around the bush on...

I'm not black and white, there are a lot of shades of grey here with these two parties that I'm definitely against.

Thanks for your concern regarding my outlook on her though.

Mad Tony
04-09-08, 19:51
Regarding Bush Sr, you might find a few interesting links by Googling the name "Brice Taylor".A survivor of government mind control? I'm sorry, but that's even more far-fetched than Bush being a devil worshiper.

By the way Paul H, you still haven't told me why Ron Paul would be a better president than Lincoln, Washington and FDR put together.

haikudasai
04-09-08, 19:54
A survivor of government mind control? I'm sorry, but that's even more far-fetched than Bush being a devil worshiper.

Can you by any chance post some things regarding that?

I'm at work and a lot of C-O-N-spiracy sites and such are blocked.

Mad Tony
04-09-08, 19:57
Can you by any chance post some things regarding that?

I'm at work and a lot of C-O-N-spiracy sites and such are blocked.Don't worry, I don't believe that crap.

http://www.mindcontrolforums.com/radio/ckln23.htm
Read this though, it'll give you a good laugh.

Lol, CONspiracy. Good one :tmb: :D

Ward Dragon
04-09-08, 19:57
I don't agree with many things she's for and I don't understand her constant need to talk about her family and their every single hobby.

The media totally trashed her family over the last few days. She probably felt compelled to show everyone what her family is really like in order to dispel those brutally vicious rumors and lies about them.

I thought the speech was brilliant. She was clever, witty, and she did outline several things she's going to do as vice president (mainly her plan to reduce dependency on foreign oil, and her desire to cut unnecessary spending even if it means encouraging McCain to use the veto power as she did so effectively while governing Alaska). I actually think she can change things for the better, so I'm really looking forward to seeing what she'll get done if she's elected.

Mona Sax
04-09-08, 20:11
Well, there's a particular department where the next government could save hundreds of billions a year, which could be used for far more constructive projects.

Goose
04-09-08, 20:22
Well, there's a particular department where the next government could save hundreds of billions a year, which could be used for far more constructive projects.

At the cost of lives?

Paul H
04-09-08, 20:25
Ok then, what exactly makes him better than all of them combined?

He is 100% independent; he is in nobody’s pocket. He is the most honest mainstream politician in America. He a true libertarian who is fighting every manifestation of the authoritarian police state that America (and Britain) is rapidly becoming. Rarely for a mainstream US politician he is not a member of a single one of the various ‘New World Order’ clubs. He has never accepted a single government paid junket. He voted against the Iraq war. He voted against the Patriot Act. He is the one mainstream politician in America with the guts and knowledge to expose the outrageous scandal of having a privately owned central bank. He wants to withdraw the US from the now utterly pointless NATO. He voted against regulating the internet. He wants America to end its intolerable role of "world policeman", not just because the world is sick and tired of it, but because it is in America’s best interests too. He want a smaller, not bigger federal government. He always votes in accordance with the Constitution. He returns part of his congressional budget to the treasury every year. Unlike Bush who murders children, he has the most impeccable pro life credentials imaginable, having personally delivered 4,000 babies.

I could go on and on, but let’s move on to those others you mentioned.

Abraham Lincoln was a despot who banned newspapers that opposed him, jailed 13,000 people just for disagreeing with him and for supporting peace, and rigged elections. He was also a war criminal.

And the other two?

And please don't say because George Washington and FDR were Freemasons.

What a short memory you have.

Ahem:
As I told you only very recently, don't waste your time telling me what not to post.

So what was wrong with Washington and Roosevelt? They were Freemasons. :p

Goose
04-09-08, 20:28
He is 100% independent; he is in nobody’s pocket. He is the most honest mainstream politician in America. He a true libertarian...

Your talking about Ron Paul right? As in a candidate for the Republican party?

So what was wrong with Washington and Roosevelt? They were Freemasons. :p

My father was a Freemason, so i do find that abit offensive. Especially seeing as you dont have any contact with that organisation, other then....google.

Paul H
04-09-08, 20:33
My father was a Freemason, so i do find that abit offensive.

Then you are too thin skinned. Would you also be offended if someone criticised whatever football club your father supported?

If you get offended every time someone criticises freemasonry, then you must be in an almost constant state of being offended.

Goose
04-09-08, 20:35
Then you are too thin skinned. Would you also be offended if someone criticised whatever footbal club your father supported?

If you get offended every time someone criticises freemasonry, then you must be in an almost constant state of being offended.

So your excusing yourself for being ignorant to exactly how people view being a mason? Its abit more then supporting a football club im afriad.

But you seem well wrapped up in your concepts, so ill leave it there.

Mona Sax
04-09-08, 20:36
At the cost of lives?
Actually, it could save some.

Goose
04-09-08, 20:38
Actually, it could save some.

Not if it involves cutting back spending on the military, poor equipment costs lives. And a pull out of Iraq or Afghanistan would cost lives of people there, the spending wont change no matter who's in, believe it or not, even Bush's aides actually want americans economy to work.

Mona Sax
04-09-08, 20:43
No need for equipment when there's no soldiers. I don't expect violence to stop without US troops in Afganistan and Iraq, but I don't expect it to grow, either. Even if that were the case, the UN should try to guarantee peace, not a coalition of countries that started the whole thing.

Right now, oil companies and war manufacturers / gun runners seem to be the only ones profiting from the conflict.

Goose
04-09-08, 20:47
No need for equipment when there's no soldiers. I don't expect violence to stop without US troops in Afganistan and Iraq, but I don't expect it to grow, either. Even if that were the case, the UN should try to guarantee peace, not a coalition of countries that started the whole thing.

Right now, oil companies and war manufacturers / gun runners seem to be the only ones profiting from the conflict.

If the Vietnam wars anything to go by, a withdrawl before the governments of both countries are capable of fighting off the resurgent Taliban and Mahdi armies, could be disasterous:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boat_people
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cambodia_under_Pol_Pot_(1975-1979)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reeducation_camp

Mona Sax
04-09-08, 20:55
Yeah, that's another conflict that should never have been started. But as I said, if the Iraqi government turns out to be incapable of pacifying the country, it's the international community's duty to help. I don't think any single country, without mandate, can be allowed to play world police (especially if that world police sees no problem in supporting dictators that oppose its enemies).

Goose
04-09-08, 20:58
Yeah, that's another conflict that should never have been started. But as I said, if the Iraqi government turns out to be incapable of pacifying the country, it's the international community's duty to help. I don't think any single country, without mandate, can be allowed to play world police (especially if that world police sees no problem in supporting dictators that oppose its enemies).

I dont think we should be in Iraq or Afghanistan, especially the British, but now we are there, we should do the job right and create the best outcome for future generations of iraqis and Afghans to have a hope of enjoying. Leaving the people to the hands of madmen who are capable of worse atrocities then communism, and claim it in the name of there God is the last thing we should do.

Unfortunatly that will cost money.

Mad Tony
04-09-08, 21:10
He is 100% independent; he is in nobody’s pocket. He is the most honest mainstream politician in America. He a true libertarian who is fighting every manifestation of the authoritarian police state that America (and Britain) is rapidly becoming. Rarely for a mainstream US politician he is not a member of a single one of the various ‘New World Order’ clubs. He has never accepted a single government paid junket. He voted against the Iraq war. He voted against the Patriot Act. He is the one mainstream politician in America with the guts and knowledge to expose the outrageous scandal of having a privately owned central bank. He wants to withdraw the US from the now utterly pointless NATO. He voted against regulating the internet. He wants America to end its intolerable role of "world policeman", not just because the world is sick and tired of it, but because it is in America’s best interests too. He want a smaller, not bigger federal government. He always votes in accordance with the Constitution. He returns part of his congressional budget to the treasury every year. Unlike Bush who murders children, he has the most impeccable pro life credentials imaginable, having personally delivered 4,000 babies.

I could go on and on, but let’s move on to those others you mentioned.

Abraham Lincoln was a despot who banned newspapers that opposed him, jailed 13,000 people just for disagreeing with him and for supporting peace, and rigged elections. He was also a war criminal.

And the other two?



What a short memory you have.

Ahem:


So what was wrong with Washington and Roosevelt? They were Freemasons. :pFirstly, I doubt Ron Paul is as good as you think he is. Personally I have no opinion on him, but you make him out to be some kind of perfect man.

Secondly, there is no such thing as the "New World Order" or any of that crap. It's all a myth made up by paranoid people who were most likely mentally ill. Also, the US and UK aren't police states. Yeah, I'd say things are a bit more tighter than they were before 9/11, but they're not police states and they're not turning into them either. Sorry to disappoint you.

Bush murders babies? Never heard anything about that. Let me guess, he does it at his secret devil worshiping ceremonies?

And the worst part of your post by far, your bit about Abraham Lincoln. I have to say I'm a little offended, to say the least. Seriously, where did you get all this BS information from? If Lincoln was that bad, why have countless historians repeatedly named him the best president ever of the United States? It seems you just toss the word war criminal around at anybody, even those who were undoubtedly good people (e.g. Abraham Lincoln).

And lastly, so what if Roosevelt and Washington were Freemasons? There is absolutely nothing wrong with Freemasons. If anything they are part of a good organization. They help people. Besides, how would them being Freemasons impact their ability to run a country?

Mr.Burns
04-09-08, 21:18
Could we keep the conspiracy theories out of here? And Ben, just drop it. We all know you have a severe disliking towards so called conspiracy theories.

SamReeves
04-09-08, 21:24
Well, there's a particular department where the next government could save hundreds of billions a year, which could be used for far more constructive projects.

Okay, and replace it with Dennis Kucinich's suggestion?

I can see the headlines now. "US bombed by __________. Department of Peace promises candlelight vigil!"

Uhm no, no, and no! :rolleyes:

Mad Tony
04-09-08, 21:38
Sorry for being perhaps a little dumb here, but what is that particular department Mona is talking about it? Is it Homeland Security?

Draco
04-09-08, 22:19
Your talking about Ron Paul right? As in a candidate for the Republican party?

I've said it many times, but Ron Paul was the only Republican running.

just croft
08-09-08, 13:03
I'm sorry, but it is quite bothering me that such video isn't being shown all over arround the web as it shows how much it Republicans are messed up. I saw this some days ago in the front online page of a very important news paper here in Portugal, the original video I saw (one in Portuguese) told more about Sarah Palin and her husband's curriculum in Alaska Independency Party. This is all I found on youtube:

ZwvPNXYrIyI

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZwvPNXYrIyI

Goose
08-09-08, 13:12
I'm sorry, but it is quite bothering me that such video isn't being shown all over arround the web as it shows how much it Republicans are messed up. I saw this some days ago in the front online page of a very important news paper here in Portugal, the original video I saw (one in Portuguese) told more about Sarah Palin and her husband's curriculum in Alaska Independency Party. This is all I found on youtube:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZwvPNXYrIyI

Which Newspaper was it, ill look on there site for the article. We have both sides being shown up here in England, depending on the ownership of the paper and there political views.

I think you may mis-understand that video, she's lobbying for more independance for the state, not independance as a country. Which is why she refered to the people as 'americans' rather then alaskans. What is it that bothers you about it? The fact that she uses one of those annoying 'political message' voices?

just croft
08-09-08, 13:14
sorry I was being stupid. I wrote the full http:...... between [youtube] [ /youtube] It should work now, and there's also a link at the end if anyone wants

Goose
08-09-08, 13:20
sorry I was being stupid. I wrote the full http:...... between [youtube] [ /youtube] It should work now, and there's also a link at the end if anyone wants

Yep its working. Whats wrong with her speech then? And before you go on to say 'she wants a seperate state from America' thats not said in this video, and also remember Obama had a banner of support from the Black Panther Party proudly displayed on his website.

Which newspaper was it again?

interstellardave
08-09-08, 13:27
There's absolutely nothing wrong with what she said in that video clip. I don't get what the problem is? :confused:

just croft
08-09-08, 13:29
Black Panther Party:

Founded in Oakland, California, by Huey P. Newton and Bobby Seale on October 15, 1966, the organization initially set forth a doctrine calling for the protection of African American neighborhoods from police brutality, in the interest of African-American justice.

Alaskan Independence Party:

The Alaskan Independence Party is a political party in the U.S. state of Alaska that advocates a state vote which includes several options, including increased state autonomy, territorial status, becoming a separate nation or commonwealth state, and, failing that, for increased Alaskan control of Alaskan land, gun rights, privatization, home schooling, and reduction of governmental intrusion in the private lives of its citizens with adherence to the founding documents of the United States


Hey it's not me who's voting but surely someone following those ideals for vice-presidency would be a no no for me. Aparently Mc.Cain's campaign moto is US First while The Alaskan Independence Party is Alaska first, Alaska Always. To make it simple, she's a separatist running for the vice-Presedency of the US. As for Obama's old Party? Didn't know about it but now that I do I couldn't agree more.

Goose
08-09-08, 13:53
Black Panther Party:

Founded in Oakland, California, by Huey P. Newton and Bobby Seale on October 15, 1966, the organization initially set forth a doctrine calling for the protection of African American neighborhoods from police brutality, in the interest of African-American justice



Again you seem to mis-understand, that party doesnt exist anymore.

This is the black panther party that does exist, and had the banner on Obamas site.

New Black Panther Party

In 1989, a group calling themselves the New Black Panther Party (NBPP) was formed in Dallas, TX. Ten years later, the NBPP became home to many former Nation of Islam members when the chairmanship was taken by Khalid Abdul Muhammad.

There goal is of a seperate state in America where black people have there own Islamic government. Exactly what your accusing, her to be saying in that video, except she's not, and they certainly are.

just croft
08-09-08, 13:58
Got to admit I had no clue of that... how long ago did that happen?

Goose
08-09-08, 14:00
Got to admit I had no clue of that... how long ago did that happen?

The end of last year, when people complained he took the banner off his site, but the New black panther party are still promoting him as there groups only choice for president.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7DQAOZlNrO8