PDA

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


Pages : [1] 2 3 4

tlr online
30-08-08, 01:42
Republican presidential hopeful Sen. John McCain picked Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin as his vice-presidential running mate, a surprising choice that adds youth to the ticket and could help the GOP attract more women voters.

Palin, 44, is the second woman to be picked as a vice-presidential candidate by a major U.S. political party and the first in the Republican Party. She's popular in her home state with approval ratings hovering near 80%, but Palin is unknown nationally and has no Washington experience -- a point Democrats were quick to make.

The selection of Palin reflects an effort by the McCain campaign to tilt the balance in a close presidential race.
Susan Carroll, senior scholar at the Center for American Women and Politics at Rutgers University, said the pick could energize Republican women "to go out and actively work for this ticket to a greater extent than they otherwise would have. For Republican women in the party, [Palin] potentially could be a very important mobilizing factor."

Rich Galen, an independent GOP strategist, also said the choice is an attempt by McCain to siphon off women who supported Hillary Clinton during her bruising but unsuccessful primary battle with Barack Obama. McCain has already been running ads centering on a former Clinton female delegate who now plans to back him.

Market Watch (http://www.marketwatch.com/news/story/mccain-picks-sarah-palin-running/story.aspx?guid={D899CC99-49A4-4345-8980-9814FBCC06C6}&dist=msr_16)

Quasimodo
30-08-08, 01:51
I like her :)

EmeraldFields
30-08-08, 01:54
At least they can't complain about Obama's experience:whi:

3 reasons why I don't want her as VP.

1. She belongs to the NRA (p.s. I get the whole people kill people thing but, without guns it would make it a whole lot harder to accomplish this goal)

2. She wants to take Polar Bears off of the endangered species list.

3. She's for off-shore drilling.

I'm sure she's a nice person, though:)

Death Mask
30-08-08, 02:00
I don't like either presidential candidate, but I sure as hell don't want Obama to win.... ever.

tlr online
30-08-08, 02:03
I don't like either presidential candidate, but I sure as hell don't want Obama to win.... ever.

Why?

pizzabob18
30-08-08, 02:07
After watching obama's speech, which contained messages of peace, American revivalization, and hope for everyone in the future, I'm truely confident that he will help restore America to the prosperous nation we used to be.

If anyone hasn't watched his speech, no matter what political party they support or country they are from, I'd highly recomend viewing the whole video.

It's a speech that contains the truthful words and ideas a true leader would say and promise to act on everything he says he will.

After the speech was over, I felt confident knowing that with Obama and Biden as his VP, America, and the world in general will become a better place.

Mr.Burns
30-08-08, 02:14
Interesting thing about charismatic politicians: They can promise the world and people will believe them. They could tell you the world is about to end and they have the only rocket out of here and the public will wish them well. Okay so that was a bit over the top but Obama is a very charismatic person and he's using that to get him into office. I worry about what he will actually do once in office. Personally I'm thinking of obstaining this year. Regarding Palin, she makes up for the ideological deficiencies that McCain has, which is a plus in keeping the core Republicans from jumping ship.

Death Mask
30-08-08, 02:15
Why?

I am originally from a South American country (Colombia) and over the last 8 years that country has been doing very well, the violence has decreased, the kidnappings have decrease, the economy has gotten much better and a big part of than is thanks to its good relation with the U.S., I recently read somewhere (don't know the source) that Obama intends to stop supporting Colombia, something that doesn't benefit me or my country, there are other reason why I don't want Obama to win but that's my #1 reason why I don't want him to win.

EmeraldFields
30-08-08, 02:18
Interesting thing about charismatic politicians: They can promise the world and people will believe them... I worry about what he will actually do once in office.

I think everyone worries what the winner will do. Obama or McCain, or anyone for that matter. Trust is important in politics but, it is often the most corrupt.

Quasimodo
30-08-08, 02:19
Interesting thing about charismatic politicians: They can promise the world and people will believe them. They could tell you the world is about to end and they have the only rocket out of here and the public will wish them well. Okay so that was a bit over the top but Obama is a very charismatic person and he's using that to get him into office. I worry about what he will actually do once in office. Personally I'm thinking of obstaining this year. Regarding Palin, she makes up for the ideological deficiencies that McCain has, which is a plus in keeping the core Republicans from jumping ship.

I'm worried about that, too, if he gets elected. When Obama chose Biden, I was completely repelled - McCain's choice of Palin makes me feel a bit better about voting for McCain (which I would've done regardless of whether he chose a woman or not for VP candidate).

Camera Obscura
30-08-08, 02:19
Slightly off-topic: Does anyone know when the voting will actually take place? :wve:

Mr.Burns
30-08-08, 02:21
November 4th.

Melonie Tomb Raider
30-08-08, 02:23
I LOVE her, I'm very happy about this. :jmp: :jmp: :jmp:

Camera Obscura
30-08-08, 02:25
November 4th.

Damn. My birthday is on the 11th. I'll just have to wait until the next election......in four years. :rolleyes:


Thanks for the response. :)

EmeraldFields
30-08-08, 02:26
Damn. My birthday is on the 11th. I'll just have to wait until the next election......in four years. :rolleyes:


Thanks for the response. :)

Why does this prevent you from voting? Just curious!:)

EDIT: I just saw you're 17! Sorry!

pizzabob18
30-08-08, 02:27
Damn. My birthday is on the 11th. I'll just have to wait until the next election......in four years. :rolleyes:


Thanks for the response. :)

You can always fill out an absentee ballot, so that way, you can fill out to vote before the official election, have your vote count, and still celebrate your birthday :)

Mr.Burns
30-08-08, 02:27
You must be 18 years of age or older to vote in elections.

Quasimodo
30-08-08, 02:29
I LOVE her, I'm very happy about this. :jmp: :jmp: :jmp:

:jmp: Gotta love a second amendment supporter!

Melonie Tomb Raider
30-08-08, 02:32
Damn. My birthday is on the 11th. I'll just have to wait until the next election......in four years. :rolleyes:


Thanks for the response. :)

That's what happened to me last election. My birthday is on the 21st, so I was just weeks to young to vote. I was upset about that. I'm 21 now and this will be my first time voting, I'm stoked! :yah:

:jmp: Gotta love a second amendment supporter!

You got that right! WOO! :yah: :yah:

I heard Huckabee build her up a lot from an interview, he did an amazing job. Hopefully he will make it to primaries next term, because I like him a lot. But that's kind of off topic.

Palin FTW!!!!

pizzabob18
30-08-08, 02:34
:jmp: Gotta love a second amendment supporter!

All of the candidates support the second amendment (For those who don't know, it's the right to bear arms). Obama has stated in his election speech that he supports the amendment as it is an American right. He just doesn't want guns to end up in the hands of criminals. (although I bet all candidates feel the same way).

Quasimodo
30-08-08, 02:37
All of the candidates support the second amendment (For those who don't know, it's the right to bear arms). Obama has stated in his election speech that he supports the amendment as it is an American right. He just doesn't want guns to end up in the hands of criminals. (although I bet all candidates feel the same way).

Have a look at Biden's stance on gun control :whi:...

tlr online
30-08-08, 02:39
Scroll down for some of McCain's best bits.

http://www.moreofthesamemccain.com

I can't believe folk are serious about voting for this guy.

Christi
30-08-08, 02:41
Why?

Ehem Justin;)...

Obama:
-wants to raise taxes
-beleives that everyone should be equal. everyone is not equal because the people that sit on their asses all day and don't do work, just simply dont desearve the things that people who do work have.
-he did drugs

McCain and Sara:
-Sara is very responsible
-so what if she doesn't have experience for presidency, being VP is going to be the best way for her to gain the experience
-Sara knows what goes on in the lives of every day people
-THEY WONT RAISE TAXES
-and McCain knows that people who dont do a ting, and that do sit on their asses all day, dont desearve what others have.
-McCain knows that everyone's hard earned money, is not going to go to others that did nothing for the things that they have
-McCain also knows that Businesses should not be heavily taxed so they have more money, so that they can branch out over the country and have more job positions for the people in need.

Luv you all *huggles* :hug:

tlr online
30-08-08, 02:41
Have a look at Biden's stance on gun control :whi:...

Palin is also pro-gun Q. She's also anti-abortion.

EmeraldFields
30-08-08, 02:41
Have a look at Biden's stance on gun control :whi:...

That makes me feel better about Biden...

Here's Biden's view:

http://www.ontheissues.org/domestic/Joe_Biden_Gun_Control.htm

Melonie Tomb Raider
30-08-08, 02:42
Palin is also pro-gun Q. She's also anti-abortion.

Yes, very impressive. :tmb:

Mr.Burns
30-08-08, 02:44
As I said, she makes up for what McCain does not have. Remember, his maverick stance has alienated a lot of Republicans. Palin should help bring them back to the GOP.

tlr online
30-08-08, 02:44
Yes, very impressive. :tmb:

So a woman who gets raped does not have the right to chose?

pizzabob18
30-08-08, 02:46
Ehem Justin;)...

Obama:
-wants to raise taxes
-beleives that everyone should be equal. everyone is not equal because the people that sit on their asses all day and don't do work, just simply dont desearve the things that people who do work have.
-he did drugs

McCain and Sara:
-Sara is very responsible
-so what if she doesn't have experience for presidency, being VP is going to be the best way for her to gain the experience
-Sara knows what goes on in the lives of every day people
-THEY WONT RAISE TAXES
-and McCain knows that people who dont do a ting, and that do sit on their asses all day, dont desearve what others have.
-McCain knows that everyone's hard earned money, is not going to go to others that did nothing for the things that they have
-McCain also knows that Businesses should not be heavily taxed so they have more money, so that they can branch out over the country and have more job positions for the people in need.

Luv you all *huggles* :hug:

Minus the parts about Obama doing drugs, You should reverse everything you posted here. People haven't called McCain "McSame" for nothing. He won't change anything and the country will go downhill.

Besides, Sara Palin has NO experience in Washington, or in politics in general. I don't want someone with little experience taking the VP seat! You shouldn't have to learn as you go with being the VP, you should enter the White House confident, and with a full agenda on your hands.

Because of your final words though, I'll say this, - sorry if I offended you at all :wve:

TR3LaraCroft
30-08-08, 02:46
Nooo not the more of the same line. Ugg, I am so tired of Obama saying that. All we get is him saying more of the same.

Anyway.. I am SO jazzed about this! I could not be more excited. I really wanted Romney to be the vp ..but this is even better! I love her!!

I only wish me and my Family had gone to the rally in Dayton, ahhh! It was only an hour away. I thought about it and wanted to...kicking myself a little for not going. It would have been awesome. But, It was still very exciting watching it at home:)


I LOVE her, I'm very happy about this. :jmp: :jmp: :jmp:
:jmp::D

Christi
30-08-08, 02:48
Minus the parts about Obama doing drugs, You should reverse everything you posted here. People haven't called McCain "McSame" for nothing. He won't change anything and the country will go downhill.

Besides, Sara Palin has NO experience in Washington, or in politics in general. I don't want someone with little experience taking the VP seat! You shouldn't have to learn as you go with being the VP, you should enter the White House confident, and with a full agenda on your hands.

Because of your final words though, I'll say this, - sorry if I offended you at all :wve:

its okaay...*pokes pizzabob's nose* :whi:

tlr online
30-08-08, 02:50
-THEY WONT RAISE TAXES

Then how on Earth do they plan on making good on trillion of dollars of debt which the last Republican President helped rack up? :confused:

Quasimodo
30-08-08, 02:54
So a woman who gets raped does not have the right to chose?

I have wondered about this, too. While it is cruel to make a woman go through an unwanted pregnancy, it is even more cruel to kill a person for a crime they didn't commit.

Christi
30-08-08, 02:54
I don't know Justin, Im just going to say most people in this country won't stand more prices being raised. For New York, its horrible. Our taxes are rancid! and the gas prices, aren't so good either. people will be outraged.;)

Mr.Burns
30-08-08, 02:54
Justin, just remember that the national debt has been building up for years, well before Bush came into office. He's just pushed it up quicker.

@christi: It's worse upstate since we're paying taxes that get funneled to NYC. No jobs up here either. :(

EmeraldFields
30-08-08, 02:54
Then how on Earth do they plan on making good on trillion of dollars of debt which the last Republican President helped rack up? :confused:

Don't you know? Money grows on trees!:ton:

Christi
30-08-08, 02:56
Justin, just remember that the national debt has been building up for years, well before Bush came into office. He's just pushed it up quicker.

@christi: It's worse upstate since we're paying taxes that get funneled to NYC. No jobs up here either. :(


OMG! You need a hug. where do you live? rofl...jk:hug:

Death Mask
30-08-08, 03:02
I have wondered about this, too. While it is cruel to make a woman go through an unwanted pregnancy, it is even more cruel to kill a person for a crime they didn't commit.

That baby has no memories, no history, no conscious, nothing wrong with aborting it, and it's not like humans are in danger of extinction, she can have another baby whenever she wants, with the person that she wants and when she is ready for it.

EDIT: Misspelled "wants"

EmeraldFields
30-08-08, 03:04
That baby has no memories, no history, no conscious, nothing wrong with aborting it, and it's not like humans are in danger of extinction, she can have another baby whenever she wasnít, with the person that she wants and when she is ready for it.

My thoughts exactly!:tmb:

Quasimodo
30-08-08, 03:06
That baby has no memories, no history, no conscious, nothing wrong with aborting it, and it's not like humans are in danger of extinction, she can have another baby whenever she wasnít, with the person that she wants and when she is ready for it.

I'm sorry, but that makes me gag.

Melonie Tomb Raider
30-08-08, 03:32
So a woman who gets raped does not have the right to chose?

She can choose whatever she wants with her own body, but the baby's body is a separate life, so killing it would be murder.

Achilles_DS
30-08-08, 03:34
She can choose whatever she wants with her own body, but the baby's body is a separate life, so killing it would be murder.

and who is going to be taking care of all these children? The state? More taxes?

Death Mask
30-08-08, 03:40
She can choose whatever she wants with her own body, but the baby's body is a separate life, so killing it would be murder.

Killing roaches, flies, mosquitoes etc... is technically murder too, and I don't feel bad about it.

tlr online
30-08-08, 03:40
She can choose whatever she wants with her own body, but the baby's body is a separate life, so killing it would be murder.

So not only does a woman go through the ordeal of being raped, according to Palin and you (and many others it seems), she must live through that trauma for nine months until she gives birth.

At what point does the foetus become a 'human being', capable of cognitive thought and awareness. Surely not at the moment of conception... so why not give the victim the choice rather than live with a reticent reminder of how she became pregnant in the first place.

I'll save the pro-gun argument for another day.

tranniversary119
30-08-08, 03:41
Scroll down for some of McCain's best bits.

http://www.moreofthesamemccain.com

I can't believe folk are serious about voting for this guy.

I'm with you with that. You've obviously heard about the houses bit have you not? How many houses do you own? I'll have my campaign manager get back to you. You can't even remember how many houses you own? Then you certainly own to much

Ward Dragon
30-08-08, 03:46
At what point does the foetus become a 'human being', capable of cognitive thought and awareness. Surely not at the moment of conception... So why not give her the choice?

This is a purely academic question here, but aren't rape victims given the "morning after" pill? At least, I thought they were, so I was wondering why they would need an actual invasive abortion in the first place.

I'm with you with that. You've obviously heard about the houses bit have you not? How many houses do you own? I'll have my campaign manager get back to you. You can't even remember how many houses you own? Then you certainly own to much

He doesn't own the houses. His wife is filthy rich and she's the one who owns everything.

tranniversary119
30-08-08, 03:49
This is a purely academic question here, but aren't rape victims given the "morning after" pill? At least, I thought they were, so I was wondering why they would need an actual invasive abortion in the first place.



He doesn't own the houses. His wife is filthy rich and she's the one who owns everything.

Still it bugs me that people think this guy is for the middle class? :rolleyes: but then again I'm young what do I know about presidents.

Achilles_DS
30-08-08, 03:50
This is a purely academic question here, but aren't rape victims given the "morning after" pill? At least, I thought they were, so I was wondering why they would need an actual invasive abortion in the first place.



He doesn't own the houses. His wife is filthy rich and she's the one who owns everything.

No offence, this is ridiculous. Since when does a married couple not own property together. No they purchased their last 5 houses over the last 15 years.

Morning afterpill is still considered abortion by many. The question is how far along does the fetus have to be in order to be considered a human?

And I will probaly get banned for saying this but it is about as blunt as I have heard it put. What exactly is the difference between a woman taking the morning after pill or a man masturbating? I can appreciate that it is fertilized, but as far as a life form goes they're essentially non existent.

Quasimodo
30-08-08, 04:03
So not only does a woman go through the ordeal of being raped, according to Palin and you (and many others it seems), she must live through that trauma for nine months until she gives birth.

At what point does the foetus become a 'human being', capable of cognitive thought and awareness. Surely not at the moment of conception... so why not give the victim the choice rather than live with a reticent reminder of how she became pregnant in the first place.

I'll save the pro-gun argument for another day.

No offense, but why argue this issue with someone who can't begin to agree with you on it without giving up part of their religious beliefs? Some of us here believe that life begins at conception, and it'd be extremely difficult - near impossible- to convince them otherwise in order to accept the practice of abortion.

Flipper1987
30-08-08, 04:18
Abortion is murder...get over it. No matter what language you use to make yourself feel better about the murder of an infant, it's still murder, plain & simple.

6M Jews died in the Holocaust. Over 30M babies have been murdered in the US since Roe v. Wade in 1973. The time for lectures are over.


Back to the topic: I think McCain's pick is politically brilliant. The fact that so many left-wingers despise the choice tells me that it's a great choice.

One reason why McCain's choice is brilliant is because for all those who suggest that Palin lacks experience, all that does is draw attention to Obama's stunning lack of experience as the #1 on the Democratic ticket. Obama has NO executive experience. Palin has more executive experience than Obama & Biden PUT TOGETHER. I'm sorry if that upsets some of you, but that's how it is.

Another reason why the pick is smart is because there are a LOT of Hillary supporters who are still ticked off at Obama's snub of Hillary as a potential VP. Many Hillary supporters, who were respective of McCain beforehand, will now take a serious look at the McCain ticket in November.

Besides, we all know that Hillary & Bill Clinton, despite their words & contrived actions at the propaganda-filled DNC convention, will NOT be voting for Obama in November. DUH! :)

The Obama minions are ticked off, & this can be seen in the incredibly insensitive initial comment that the Obama camp made after the Palin announcement was made.

Will McCain's choice of Palin as his VP work out? Time will tell. From what I have seen, the Republican party will enter the convention pumped & united. Viewership will be high. That scares the hell out of the Dems.

Dixie
30-08-08, 04:20
Ooh can I start the gun argument? :jmp:

If guns are made illegal, good people will hand in their guns, leaving them defenseless against bad people who won't.

Case and point.:ohn:

EmeraldFields
30-08-08, 04:21
No offense, but why argue this issue with someone who can't begin to agree with you on it without giving up part of their religious beliefs? Some of us here believe that life begins at conception, and it'd be extremely difficult - near impossible- to convince them otherwise in order to accept the practice of abortion.

I hate that I'm soo illiterate in the bible area but, what passage says that abortion is bad? Just curious!:)

...despite their words & contrived actions at the propaganda-filled DNC convention...

And I take it that the Republican convention won't???

Flipper1987
30-08-08, 04:30
I hate that I'm soo illiterate in the bible area but, what passage says that abortion is bad? Just curious!:)

Oh my dear God. Ever hear of the 6th Commandment? Granted, the term "abortion" may not be in the Bible, but the word is not found in the Constitution either.

And I take it that the Republican convention won't [engage in propaganda]???

I never said they won't. IMHO, at least the GOP will be slightly more intellectually honest than the Dems.

FLIPPER - btw, it's the Bible, not bible.

Ward Dragon
30-08-08, 04:30
No offence, this is ridiculous. Since when does a married couple not own property together. No they purchased their last 5 houses over the last 15 years.

Since McCain is a Senator and he's not supposed to know what he owns so that he can vote fairly without a conflict of interests. It's part of the ethics regulations for the Senate :)

http://ethics.senate.gov/downloads/pdffiles/trust.pdf

EmeraldFields
30-08-08, 04:32
Oh my dear God. Ever hear of the 6th Commandment? Granted, the term "abortion" may not be in the Bible, but the word is not found in the Constitution either.

FLIPPER - btw, it's the Bible, not bible.

Indeed I have!:) But, does the Bible directly say when life begins? Or if abortion is morally wrong?

Oh sorry, The title of a book should be capitalized! You would make a great english teacher!:)

iamlaracroft
30-08-08, 04:41
This is a purely academic question here, but aren't rape victims given the "morning after" pill? At least, I thought they were, so I was wondering why they would need an actual invasive abortion in the first place.


Not all rape victims are comfortable going to the police or authorities or hospital immediately afterwards.
Many feel so violated and exposed that the thought of being put through a rape-victim evidence-collecting process feels like being raped all over again.

Also, an 'invasive abortion' is not necessary until seven weeks gestation. During those seven weeks a pill combination similar to the 'morning after' can be taken to induce a miscarriage.
This is done at the woman's home, on her own accord, where she can be comfortable and, if she chooses, taken care of by friends or family. This method at least affords her a modicum of privacy with a great deal less trauma and stigma attached, since there is no sterile doctor's office with surgical equipment and vacuums to compound her no-doubt already present sense of isolation, fear, and shame.

Flipper1987
30-08-08, 04:42
Indeed I have!:) But, does the Bible directly say when life begins? Or if abortion is morally wrong?

This is so typical of liberals who have no morals. Is abortion morally wrong? ROFLMAO!!!!! Even those individuals who support a women's right to choose admit that abortion is a "necessary evil." So what do you think the Bible's stance is on that?

Could you please direct me to a Bible passage that states that abortion is morally acceptable? Yeah, that's what I thought.

30M+ dead since 1973 - you must be so proud.

FLIPPER

EmeraldFields
30-08-08, 04:46
This is so typical of liberals who have no morals. Is abortion morally wrong? ROFLMAO!!!!! Even those individuals who support a women's right to choose admit that abortion is a "necessary evil." So what do you think the Bible's stance is on that?

Could you please direct me to a Bible passage that states that abortion is morally acceptable? Yeah, that's what I thought.

30M+ dead since 1973 - you must be so proud.

FLIPPER

HOLD UP!

Pro-choice does NOT mean pro-abortion! I don't believe that abortion should be promoted at all! It should be a very last resort for a bad situation. It just that when that situation comes around, it is up to the woman to decide NOT the state.

By the way not to be hurtful but, you shouldn't judge others on their morals without knowing them. Everyone has their own opinions and causes but, that doesn't mean we can't coexist. I respect your opinion but, I don't agree with it.:)

iamlaracroft
30-08-08, 04:49
This is so typical of liberals who have no morals. Is abortion morally wrong? ROFLMAO!!!!! Even those individuals who support a women's right to choose admit that abortion is a "necessary evil." So what do you think the Bible's stance is on that?

Could you please direct me to a Bible passage that states that abortion is morally acceptable? Yeah, that's what I thought.

30M+ dead since 1973 - you must be so proud.

FLIPPER

Why should a woman's life be ruined and an innocent life be formed because a man can't control his baser instincts?
Until men can control their sexual reproduction organs, let women chose to do with theirs as they please.

Honestly, who wants to grow up knowing they were the result of a rape?
and that their mom absolutely didn't want to keep them but did because she had no choice??
What a way to live.

Ward Dragon
30-08-08, 04:54
Not all rape victims are comfortable going to the police or authorities or hospital immediately afterwards.
Many feel so violated and exposed that the thought of being put through a rape-victim evidence-collecting process feels like being raped all over again.

Also, an 'invasive abortion' is not necessary until seven weeks gestation. During those seven weeks a pill combination similar to the 'morning after' can be taken to induce a miscarriage.
This is done at the woman's home, on her own accord, where she can be comfortable and, if she chooses, taken care of by friends or family. This method at least affords her a modicum of privacy with a great deal less trauma and stigma attached, since there is no sterile doctor's office with surgical equipment and vacuums to compound her no-doubt already present sense of isolation, fear, and shame.

Okay, thanks for explaining that :) Maybe that pill combination is what I was thinking of. I didn't think it was necessary to have a surgical abortion if the pregnancy was terminated early enough, so that's why I asked.

Quasimodo
30-08-08, 04:55
Why should a woman's life be ruined and an innocent life be formed because a man can't control his baser instincts?
Until men can control their sexual reproduction organs, let women chose to do with theirs as they please.

Honestly, who wants to grow up knowing they were the result of a rape?
and that their mom absolutely didn't want to keep them but did because she had no choice??
What a way to live.

The child doesn't necessarily have to know they were the result of rape (for example, if the child is adopted by another family). Otherwise, if the child does know, they should also know that it wasn't their fault.

iamlaracroft
30-08-08, 04:56
Okay, thanks for explaining that :) Maybe that pill combination is what I was thinking of. I didn't think it was necessary to have a surgical abortion if the pregnancy was terminated early enough, so that's why I asked.

no worries :hug::D

Flipper1987
30-08-08, 05:12
HOLD UP!

Pro-choice does NOT mean pro-abortion!

Yeah, it actually does. Don't resort to a pathetic cop-out, I (& many others here) are far too educated & experienced to be fooled by semantics. If you allow for parties to engage in the murder of an infant, then you support abortion, plain & simple.

By the way not to be hurtful but, you shouldn't judge others on their morals without knowing them.

Uh excuse me, but who was the arrogant one to ask me where the term "abortion" can be found in the Bible? Who did that? You were clearly trying to ask a moralistic question (or what you thought was a moralistic question) when you asked my to cite a Bible passage that argued that an abortion was morally wrong. Of course abortion is wrong; you even suggested that in a previous paragraph. If you knew that, then why did you ask me to prove that abortion was wrong?

Everyone has their own opinions and causes but, that doesn't mean we can't coexist. I respect your opinion but, I don't agree with it.:)

That's fine.

FLIPPER

Flipper1987
30-08-08, 05:17
Why should a woman's life be ruined and an innocent life be formed because a man can't control his baser instincts?

I'm so glad to see that women have completely escaped responsibility in your eyes for an unwanted pregnancy.

Until men can control their sexual reproduction organs, let women chose to do with theirs as they please.

Again, what about women who open their legs to such irresponsible men? Where is your self-righteous outrage against them? What about THEIR responsibility?

Honestly, who wants to grow up knowing they were the result of a rape?

I'd rather be alive than dead. You REALLY need to go to a search engine & type in "adopted people." See for yourself the individuals who would have died if people like you had their way.

and that their mom absolutely didn't want to keep them but did because she had no choice??

Holy crap, have you never heard of adoption????????????????????

I was adopted before murder was legalized in 1973. I thank God that my biological mother wasn't so damn selfish & self-righteous as you are.

FLIPPER

EmeraldFields
30-08-08, 05:17
If I came off as arrogant than i am truely sorry!:o Arrogance is very unappealing! I wasn't questioning your morals when asking you to quote from the Bible(;)) I simply wanted to learn. I hold nothing against you for what you believe. You have the right to say what you want, as do I. I think it's time for us to agreed to disagree and call it good.

Truce?:p

Flipper1987
30-08-08, 05:20
Truce?:p

Yes :)

FLIPPER - who can be arrogant as well too

EmeraldFields
30-08-08, 05:33
Yes :)

FLIPPER - who can be arrogant as well too

I think we all can suffer from that now and again.

Feather Duster
30-08-08, 05:37
This is so typical of liberals who have no morals. Is abortion morally wrong? ROFLMAO!!!!! Even those individuals who support a women's right to choose admit that abortion is a "necessary evil." So what do you think the Bible's stance is on that?

Could you please direct me to a Bible passage that states that abortion is morally acceptable? Yeah, that's what I thought.

30M+ dead since 1973 - you must be so proud.

FLIPPER

Sorry, but you're not the one who has to sit inside a hospital bed and push a human baby out of a hole the size of a botte cap ;)

I hate it when men make this kind of statement, " Abortion is wrong! " When they have no idea what kind of stress goes through a woman's life, and they can be a man-***** all they want and not have any responsibility.

Notice how I use woman, not street *****.

Flipper1987
30-08-08, 05:45
Sorry, but you're not the one who has to sit inside a hospital bed and push a human baby out of a hole the size of a botte cap ;)

I completely respect all women, especially those who give birth. I could never understand how that feels, so that is why I (& many men) defer to women when they are pregnant.

I hate it when men make this kind of statement, " Abortion is wrong! " When they have no idea what kind of stress goes through a woman's life.

So are you suggesting abortion isn't "wrong" in any capacity?

I'm sorry but women do not have a monopoly on morality in regards to abortion. I have dated women who have had abortions. Let's just say that it wasn't the hi-light of their lives. I have had deep conversations with women who have had abortions. I have heard their stories. I am not some rookie on this topic; it has been a part of my life for 38+ years.

In addition, I was adopted in 1969. I could have easily been aborted if Roe v. Wade occurred 4 years earlier. With all due respect, I have a dog in this fight. Just like anybody who was born after January 1973.

FLIPPER

Feather Duster
30-08-08, 05:49
I completely respect all women, especially those who give birth. I could never understand how that feels, so that is why I (& many men) defer to women when they are pregnant.



So are you suggesting abortion isn't "wrong" in any capacity?

I'm sorry but women do not have a monopoly on morality in regards to abortion. I have dated women who have had abortions. Let's just say that it wasn't the hi-light of their lives. I have had deep conversations with women who have had abortions. I have heard their stories. I am not some rookie on this topic; it has been a part of my life for 35+ years.

In addition, I was adopted in 1969. I could have easily been aborted if Roe v. Wade occurred 4 years earlier. With all due respect, I have a dog in this fight.


FLIPPER


edit, never mind, I don't want to get sucked into this topic so deep I can't get out.

Draco
30-08-08, 05:54
McCain's choosing Palin means I might actually vote for him instead of 'None of the Above'.

As for the abortion thing...sterilize everyone and introduce licensing for reproducing and it ceases to be an issue.

Flipper1987
30-08-08, 05:58
edit, never mind, I don't want to get sucked into this topic so deep I can't get out.

I apologize if I came across too strongly; I'm just passionate about the abortion issue.

For me, I view abortion in the same way that abolitionists viewed slavery during the 19th century.

FLIPPER

tlr online
30-08-08, 06:11
At what point does the foetus become a 'human being', capable of cognitive thought and awareness.

I was adopted before murder was legalized in 1973. I thank God that my biological mother wasn't so damn selfish & self-righteous as you are.

FLIPPER

On this basis, it just doesn't matter at what point the foetus becomes 'aware', because the net result is that a human being is born.

My suggestion however (and the axis of my inability to categorically decide which side of the fence I'm on) is whether a rape victim (and I'm being very, very specific here) should have the right to subsidise nine months of trauma for an existence never known about.

tlr online
30-08-08, 06:17
I've just had a three hour debate with my best mate on MSN, who as you know is a proud Republican from Atlanta, on the issue of gun crime. I put forward the suggestion that by banning guns in America, you would reduce deaths from gun crime. He argued that by banning guns, I would be taking away his right to defend himself, and empowering criminals who would still carry guns. If a criminal burst into his home and threatened to shoot his family, would I be happy with taking away his right to blow this guys head off.

And this is where the conflict begins for me. It's an emotive response, which in most cases defies logic. While I would be putting his family at risk, I may be reducing the overall number of deaths from gun crime across the country (depending on which camp you get your statistics from). Personally, if someone came charging into my home with a gun, if I had access to a firearm, you can bet your tights I'd be aiming for his heart. I'd do that out of fear for my family, anger at my personal space being invaded, and pure self preservation. Those are all emotional responses, which are not necessarily logical. But by accepting their role within society, I am just perpetuating their status in modern culture and what they represent.

So I'm really at a cross-roads with this one, and I'd be really interested in hearing your views.

Quasimodo
30-08-08, 06:23
I've just had a three hour debate with my best mate on MSN, who as you know is a proud Republican from Atlanta, on the issue of gun crime. I put forward the suggestion that by banning guns in America, you would reduce deaths from gun crime. He argued that by banning guns, I would be taking away his right to defend himself, and empowering criminals who would still carry guns. If a criminal burst into his home and threatened to shoot his family, would I be happy with taking away his right to blow this guys head off.

And this is where the conflict begins for me. It's an emotive response, which in most cases defies logic. While I would be putting his family at risk, I may be reducing the overall number of deaths from gun crime across the country (depending on which camp you get your statistics from). Personally, if someone came charging into my home with a gun, if I had access to a firearm, you can bet your tights I'd be aiming for his heart. I'd do that out of fear for my family, anger at my personal space being invaded, and pure self preservation. Those are all emotional responses, which are not necessarily logical, and may perpetuate what what guns represent in modern culture.

So I'm really at a cross-roads with this one, and I'd be really interested in hearing your views.
How would you feel if someone came charging into your home with a gun, but you had none because guns were banned? Criminals don't abide by gun laws, and a gun ban only disarms law-abiding citizens.

tlr online
30-08-08, 06:24
How would you feel if someone came charging into your home with a gun, but you had none because guns were banned? Criminals don't abide by gun laws, and a gun ban only disarms law-abiding citizens.

Guns are illegal in the UK. So I'm at risk of that happening every day. Our oridinary policemen are not permitted to carry guns either, so they are more at risk from the effects of armed criminals. But the question is, does overall number of deaths from gun-related crimes here in the UK warrant them being illegal here and could that principle be applied elsewhere. As you say, and as I mention in my original post, this is where the conflict begins for me.

Quasimodo
30-08-08, 06:26
Guns are illegal in the UK. So I'm at risk of that happening every day.

Wow. That makes me even more thankful I live in Texas!

But the question is, does overall number of deaths from gun-related crimes here in the UK warrant them being illegal here and could that principle be applied elsewhere. As you say, and as I mention in my original post, this is where the conflict begins for me.
The way I see it, you're going to have deaths from gun-related crimes no matter whether they are legal or not. Question is - do you want good citizens to be able to protect themselves?

iamlaracroft
30-08-08, 06:30
hmmm...and yet, the UK doesn't experience even a fraction of home-invasions, deaths by firearms and general crime as the US does.

guns = illegal in UK.
UK = far less crime and deaths by firearms.


guns = legal in US.
US = leading nation for crime and deaths by firearms.


:whi:

Quasimodo
30-08-08, 06:31
hmmm...and yet, the UK doesn't experience even a fraction as much home-invasions, deaths by firearms and general crime as the US does.

guns = illegal in UK.
UK = far less crime and deaths by firearms.


guns = legal in US.
US = leading nation for crime and deaths by firearms.


:whi:
Source?

tlr online
30-08-08, 06:31
The way I see it, you're going to have deaths from gun-related crimes no matter whether they are legal or not. Question is - do you want good citizens to be able to protect themselves?

But what if making them accessible to everyone increases the overall death toll. There has to be cause and effect from arming the general populous.

Hairhelmet12
30-08-08, 06:31
hmmm...and yet, the UK doesn't experience even a fraction as much home-invasions, deaths by firearms and general crime as the US does.

guns = illegal in UK.
UK = far less crime and deaths by firearms.


guns = legal in US.
US = leading nation for crime and deaths by firearms.


:whi:

At leased we dont have wild camel spiders running around everywere!! :whi: lol

Quasimodo
30-08-08, 06:33
But what if making them accessible to everyone increases the overall death toll. There has to be a cause and effect to arming the general populous.

That's okay, it's just a pity that a few unarmed people will get robbed and murdered in their own houses. But the over all death toll will be low! Power to the people. Let's let citizens protect their life and property.

tlr online
30-08-08, 06:34
That's okay, it's just a pity that a few unarmed people will get robbed and murdered in their own houses.

Therein lies the conflict. It's an emotional response over a logical one. From an emotional point of view, I agree with the Second Amendment. But from a logical point of view, I wonder whether by banning guns, you would reduce the 'overall' death toll from gun-related crime.

iamlaracroft
30-08-08, 06:34
Source?

...general knowledge.
there just simply isn't as much crime or guns or gun-related fatalities in many other countries as there is in the US.
Our statistics and crime rates are astronomical, ridiculous and shameful.
Canada isn't even an ocean away and yet they have virtually no homicides to report, gun-related or not.

It's simply our culture and self-entitled ways of thinking that has got us where we are now.

Quasimodo
30-08-08, 06:38
Therein lies the conflict. It's an emotional response over a logical one. From an emotional point of view, I agree with the Second Amendment. But from a logical point of view, I wonder whether by banning guns, you would reduce the 'overall' death toll from gun-related crime.

You say it's an emotional response as if self defense is something...illogical. What would be the logical response to an armed intruder in your house?

tlr online
30-08-08, 06:41
You say it's an emotional response as if self defense is something...illogical. What would be the logical response to an armed intruder in your house?

You're comparing a specific (and personal) incident versus the possible reduction in deaths from gun-related crimes across an entire nation. It's a loaded argument, because it incites an emotional response. I'm suggesting that if by banning guns you reduce the 'overall' death toll, that that would be the logical course of action.

Quasimodo
30-08-08, 06:42
You're comparing a specific (and personal) incident versus the possible reduction in deaths from gun-related crimes across a nation. It's a loaded argument, because it incites an emotional response. I'm suggesting that if by banning guns you reduce the 'overall' death toll, that would be the logical course of action.

Say what you will, but I'll never disarm myself for the sake of some statistic.

tlr online
30-08-08, 06:44
Say what you will, but I'll never disarm myself for the sake of some statistic.

It's not likely you'll ever be forced to. The right to bear arms is written into your constitution. But the debate is still valid.

Ward Dragon
30-08-08, 06:45
You're comparing a specific (and personal) incident versus the possible reduction in deaths from gun-related crimes across a nation. It's a loaded argument, because it incites an emotional response. If by banning guns you reduce the 'overall' death toll, that would be the logical course of action.

Maybe the US is unique because there are so many guns here to begin with, but so far the horrible gun crimes have happened in "gun-free" zones (such as schools), and the highest crime areas (such as Washington D.C.) are places with strict gun bans. In the places where a gun ban is lifted the crime actually goes down due to civilians defending themselves. I guess it would be different if there were absolutely no guns at all in the entire country, but I really can't see that happening even if guns were banned.

Quasimodo
30-08-08, 06:47
Maybe the US is unique because there are so many guns here to begin with, but so far the horrible gun crimes have happened in "gun-free" zones (such as schools), and the highest crime areas (such as Washington D.C.) are places with strict gun bans. In the places where a gun ban is lifted the crime actually goes down due to civilians defending themselves. I guess it would be different if there were absolutely no guns at all in the entire country, but I really can't see that happening even if guns were banned.

Exactly.

tlr online
30-08-08, 06:48
b/w we also debated Space, the Universe, the hadron collider, the Sun's mass (a teaspoon full of Sun apparently weighs two tons!), an asteroid hitting Earth and the curious observation that all life on Earth has two eyes, two ears, two or four legs... apart from spiders, who have eight eyes, eight legs and spin silk from their arse. We concluded they were planted on Earth by aliens. :)

My brain hurts. :wve:

Ward Dragon
30-08-08, 06:50
apart from spiders, who have eight eyes, eight legs and spin silk from their arse. We concluded they were planted on Earth by aliens. :)

I knew it! :eek: Seriously though, I really hate spiders XD

TR3LaraCroft
30-08-08, 06:58
Guns are illegal in the UK. So I'm at risk of that happening every day. Our oridinary policemen are not permitted to carry guns either, so they are more at risk from the effects of armed criminals. But the question is, does overall number of deaths from gun-related crimes here in the UK warrant them being illegal here and could that principle be applied elsewhere. As you say, and as I mention in my original post, this is where the conflict begins for me.

I definitely understand what you are saying tlr. It is hard to determine sometimes. I wish the U.S were a safer place with higher morals and values. I wish we didn't have to be afraid of what some people might do. I wish it would fix it, but I think it is deeper than that.
I do believe that we should have the right, like your friend said.
I feel the same way. The criminals will still find a way to get them and then we are left without the choice to own one for protection.

I think we should have the freedom to choose

Goose
30-08-08, 07:10
Ooh can I start the gun argument? :jmp:

If guns are made illegal, good people will hand in their guns, leaving them defenseless against bad people who won't.

Case and point.:ohn:

Since the ban on hand guns in Britain the death rate in gun related crime has risen. So whether someones in the NRA doesnt matter, and if they are, they would have had a full check on there personality and back-ground by the police and you should feel more comfertable that they know how to handle a weapon.

MiCkiZ88
30-08-08, 07:24
Good for her.
-beleives that everyone should be equal. everyone is not equal because the people that sit on their asses all day and don't do work, just simply dont desearve the things that people who do work have.
Ever heard about a social system that wont give you money if you won't do anything? Well that's what we have here. They will support you if you study or have a crap job, but they will not support you if you simply refuse to work or don't want to study. We have social programs which help you to get back in to work, and they can arrange schooling via work center if you can't find a job, but you will live without support if you turn down the offer. Everyone is equal, and I think it's ****ing annoying to say that no one is when some who ''sit on their arses all day'' are simply not capable of working. Ever thought of that? Of course not. They are losers who deserve nothing.

Goose
30-08-08, 08:29
Good for her. Ever heard about a social system that wont give you money if you won't do anything? Well that's what we have here. They will support you if you study or have a crap job, but they will not support you if you simply refuse to work or don't want to study. We have social programs which help you to get back in to work, and they can arrange schooling via work center if you can't find a job, but you will live without support if you turn down the offer. Everyone is equal, and I think it's ****ing annoying to say that no one is when some who ''sit on their arses all day'' are simply not capable of working. Ever thought of that? Of course not. They are losers who deserve nothing.

In England they get a free house for there trouble, the majority who work will end up paying for a mortgage for the rest of there life.

MiCkiZ88
30-08-08, 09:40
In England they get a free house for there trouble, the majority who work will end up paying for a mortgage for the rest of there life.Well no wonder some people feel **** about social security. It needs to be implemented better, and be more strict. Free housing for asylym seekers is fine, at least till they can work and have learned the language.

Mona Sax
30-08-08, 10:02
I don't think it's going to work - not because of Palin, but because of McCain. It's no secret that he's not exactly a feminist, so it seems obvious he's mainly trying to appeal to disgruntled Hillary voters. I'd be surprised if they bought it instead of being offended because it suggests they'll vote for anyone just as long as the candidate's female (Palin's take on the '18 million cracks' image supports that interpretation). Hillary Clinton and Sarah Palin couldn't be more different. Palin's going to help with the GOP grassroots movement, but I expect the choice to have a negative effect on Democrats and many Independents. Regardless of Palin's gender, the McCain/Palin ticket is a classic pro-life, pro-war, pro-gun, Big Oil, anti-gay Republican one.

Elysia
30-08-08, 10:05
In England they get a free house for there trouble, the majority who work will end up paying for a mortgage for the rest of there life.
Actually, that is a misnomer - I used to work for the DHSS (now the DWP) and it's not as cut and dried as the Daily Mail would have you believe. Basically, you have to have kids in order to qualify for government housing, and that is only because the government have a general policy that says kids can't be made to suffer due to their parents' mistakes. Obviously, that is open to abuse (and I have seen it many, many times and yes, it does infuriate me), but it really is a case of being caught between a rock and a hard place - on one hand, it's definitely not fair that some people just go out, have kids and get things for free, but on the other, I cannot with good conscience support a system that would have children living on the streets. There really is no simple solution to this - once you've worked with unemployed families, you learn very quickly that there are far more complex social reasons beyond 'can't be arsed' at play, and that whilst some cases make you want to punch things (for example: one man I used to sign complained that he couldn't live on his £1000 a month benefit... which was especially galling, since as someone who worked full time, I actually took home less in wages than he did in benefit!), but some cases just made me want to cry (young man left home due to abuse (step father was beating the living crap out of him), was living on the streets, no address = no chance of getting a job, no hostel places left, so no one could take him in... he ended up falling through the cracks in the system with a drug problem he never would have had if he could have got a college place / a job that he so obviously sorely wanted - he would come into our office just about every day at first and apply for everything going, but as soon as they found out he was NFA (no fixed abode), no one would touch him with a barge pole - eventually depression set in, he turned to drugs and that was it. Another promising young person left to wither and rot on the scrap heap of life).

It's very easy to get up in arms about those less fortunate than ourselves when we have a nice comfy home to sit in and forget that not everyone who needs help is freeloading dole scum...

Mad Tony
30-08-08, 10:36
I think she's great. :)

What annoys me is that a lot of Democrats are always moaning about how Republicans are sexist (despite the government having a female secretary of state) yet when the Republican presidential nominee chooses a female as his running mate, they still complain.

Say what you will, but I'll never disarm myself for the sake of some statistic.Good for you :tmb:
Personally I think here in Britain the police should carry firearms and so should the law-abiding citizen. It isn't gonna happen though thanks to the strong anti-self defense government we have.


1. She belongs to the NRA (p.s. I get the whole people kill people thing but, without guns it would make it a whole lot harder to accomplish this goal)
So? If anything her being in the NRA would make me want to vote for her more, not less.

Yeah, without guns there would be a much lower firearm death rate but people would just knives like they do here in the UK. Personally if I was gonna be murdered by somebody I'd rather be shot in the head than stabbed to death.

Mona Sax
30-08-08, 10:42
Supporting a candidate just because she's a woman would be just as sexist as rejecting her because if it.

John McCain nominated a female whose opinions radically differ from many Democrats' point of view. As I said, I think it's pretty insulting to suggest Hillary voters will support any candidate as long as she's a woman.

calico25
30-08-08, 10:57
All of the candidates support the second amendment (For those who don't know, it's the right to bear arms). Obama has stated in his election speech that he supports the amendment as it is an American right. He just doesn't want guns to end up in the hands of criminals. (although I bet all candidates feel the same way).

uhh. no. This thread makes me laugh. To many people who know jack **** about american politics and who think their view is the word.

Geck-o-Lizard
30-08-08, 12:30
I've been Stumbling all night and heard nothing positive about Palin so far. When asked about being VP last month she asked what the job involved. :|

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 every day?


GUNS R AWSOME

I don't suppose you've noticed how shooting sprees only seem to happen in gun-loving countries? You don't hear of mass knifings very often, do you?

The politician who legalises guns in this country is the politician who'll have the blood on his hands when kids start getting shot for being easy targets.

In contrast, the police are considering illegalising even replicas of guns because of unbalanced individuals who've been modifying them to make them lethal. Watch out Ben, they'll be after your airsoft rifle next.

Mad Tony
30-08-08, 12:34
I don't suppose you've noticed how shooting sprees only seem to happen in gun-loving countries? You don't hear of mass knifings very often, do you?

The politician who legalises guns in this country is the politician who'll have the blood on his hands when kids start getting shot for being easy targets.

In contrast, the police are considering illegalising even replicas of guns because of unbalanced individuals who've been modifying them to make them lethal. Watch out Ben, they'll be after your airsoft rifle next.Don't quote stuff I never said.

Catapharact
30-08-08, 12:48
I think she's great. :)

What annoys me is that a lot of Democrats are always moaning about how Republicans how Republicans are sexist (despite the government having a female secretary of state) yet when the Republican presidential nominee chooses a female as his running mate, they still complain.

And when did they say that? I haven't heard one democrat make any such comment of sexism. Can you give me exact quotes?

patriots88888
30-08-08, 12:59
It's good to know that people in this world actually care about these "grey area" topics. However, Idealogical topics such as abortion, gun control, and countless others tend to cloud and overshadow what I consider the "real issues" in society today.

What will a stance on these issues do for you? Will they provide you a job if you have none? Will they provide you and your children with better health care? Will they help ensure a better education for your children?

The only question I can answer is the one to "Will they make you feel better about yourself?" The answer to that is YES.

That is the main crux with idealogical topics and arguments. They have a tendancy to do nothing more than push aside and cloak the real issues that will TRULY help your livelihood, quality of life and be beneficial to you. Politicians use these topics as a way of gaining the sympathetic vote, nothing more. If you believe there is any other purpose behind them, then you are sadly mistaken. That is the plain and simple truth...Unfortunately.

Mad Tony
30-08-08, 13:12
And when did they say that? I haven't heard one democrat make any such comment of sexism. Can you give me exact quotes?I was talking about Democrat supporters in general, not the politicians. Sorry, should've made it clearer.

Catapharact
30-08-08, 13:15
I was talking about Democrat supporters in general, not the politicians. Sorry, should've made it clearer.

You definately should have. The democratic supporters themselves are divided into their own ignorant little holes much like the republicans (as some of the posters on this forum have clearly demonstrated.) To over generalize is to put yourself in the same boat as them.

Geck-o-Lizard
30-08-08, 13:15
Quotes would still be great.

"Democrat supporters in general are sexist" - how did you conclude this?

Forwen
30-08-08, 13:36
-he did drugs

So what? I did video games.

Mad Tony
30-08-08, 13:41
Quotes would still be great.

"Democrat supporters in general are sexist" - how did you conclude this?Please read my posts properly.


What annoys me is that a lot of Democrats are always moaning about how Republicans are sexist

I never said anything about Democrat supports being sexist. I said a lot of them say Republican supporters are sexist.

Mona Sax
30-08-08, 13:47
Bush did drugs, too. So did Bill Clinton (but he didn't inhale).

Point is, if having experimented with drugs meant you're not qualified for any job involving leading people, 90% of the world's population would be stuck behind a McDonald's counter.

Mad Tony, could you provide a quote saying Democrats think Republicans are sexist?

Mad Tony
30-08-08, 14:01
Mad Tony, could you provide a quote saying Democrats think Republicans are sexist?Note, I'm talking about a lot of Democratic supporters in general (not all, just a lot), hence why I don't have any quotes.

Drone
30-08-08, 14:01
Nice choice :)

Catapharact
30-08-08, 14:04
Note, I'm talking about a lot of Democratic supporters in general (not all, just a lot), hence why I don't have any quotes.


Then do have any statistics to prove that? No? Then your statement cannot be taken into much accountability. You can't say that as a binding conclusion.

Mad Tony
30-08-08, 14:09
Then do have any statistics to prove that? No? Then your statement cannot be taken into much accountability. You can't say that as a binding conclusion.Here's an example.

http://www.prospect.org/cs/articles?article=mccains_sexist_vp_pick
http://www.harvarddems.com/node/495

Mona Sax
30-08-08, 14:09
Note, I'm talking about a lot of Democratic supporters in general (not all, just a lot), hence why I don't have any quotes.
You see, that's just the point. Party A assumes something about party B, party B is offended and retaliates, and the whole mess keeps escalating until nobody listens anymore and it's all about who screams the loudest. Personally, I don't want to see that on TRF.

Geck-o-Lizard
30-08-08, 14:14
Note, I'm talking about a lot of Democratic supporters in general (not all, just a lot), hence why I don't have any quotes.

I misread my own post earlier, d'oh.

If you're going to say "in general, these people say this" then you'll need to back it up with something that shows how they generally say that, like some popular Democrat blogs. (I see you posted a couple while I was writing - cool) You can't go making wild claims and excusing yourself with "I'm talking about Dem supporters in general, so I can't provide any quotes." If this is a general concensus among Dem supporters then there must be vast amounts of material to quote, no?

I'd still like to see a few major Dem blogs that can show unequivocally that they mostly think Repubs are sexist though. Harvard College doesn't really count as "in general" proof, just like a right-wing Texas guns magazine wouldn't prove that Republicans in general love guns.

Catapharact
30-08-08, 14:14
Here's an example. http://www.prospect.org/cs/articles?article=mccains_sexist_vp_pick


The rant doesn't surprise me as much as I hear idiotic claims from some of the more right-wing fanatics that have written in the posts you have put up so ergo, now you see the problem with the other half of the picture. You have extreme lefts and extreme rights. Don't place the idealism of one author on the entire democratic party.

tlr online
30-08-08, 14:57
As I said, I think it's pretty insulting to suggest Hillary voters will support any candidate as long as she's a woman.

I pretty much agree with you. I winched at Sarah Palin's '****** Monologue' speech when she reached out to disgruntled Clinton voters. That was a pretty desperate move IMO. Moreover, McCain's biggest criticism of his opponent has been his apparent lack of experience. That criticism could now be levelled at Palin. Neither candidate has a 'complete' package, but John McCain is just too much like Bush.

As a side note, it will be interesting to see whether Bush will be impeached (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Movement_to_impeach_George_W._Bush) once he leaves office.

Mr.Burns
30-08-08, 15:35
I believe you need to be in office to be impeached. Otherwise it would be the same as filing criminal charges against Bush. I doubt anything will happen to him since he would probably throw out an executive order, protecting him and his comrades from any and all legal action. Actually I heard a rumor that he had already done something like that a few years ago.

Paul H
30-08-08, 15:42
Scroll down for some of McCain's best bits.

http://www.moreofthesamemccain.com

I can't believe folk are serious about voting for this guy.

I can because of the recent history of US elections. The last time around they had a choice between a brave hero who speaks five foreign languages and a draft dodger who couldn't even name five foreign languages. And which one did they choose?

On the face of it, based on merit, Obama & Biden should walk away with this election, and if it were in any other country, they would do. But this is the US electorate; the same voters who gave Bush not just one but two terms. After that, anything is possible - even "President McCain". God help the world!

rickybazire
30-08-08, 16:03
My biggest worry for Obama, is that white supremists might try to kill him.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/uselection2008/barackobama/2624438/Police-stop-white-supremacist-plot-to-kill-Barack-Obama.html

Mad Tony
30-08-08, 16:06
My biggest worry for Obama, is that white supremists might try to kill him.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/uselection2008/barackobama/2624438/Police-stop-white-supremacist-plot-to-kill-Barack-Obama.htmlI wouldn't worry. How often do you hear of extremists succeeding in assassinations? Heck, wasn't the last big politician to be assassinated in America JFK in the 60s? Considering how many threats and attempts there have been, that's pretty good that the last one that succeeded was such a long time ago.

robm_2007
30-08-08, 16:22
I am originally from a South American country (Colombia) and over the last 8 years that country has been doing very well, the violence has decreased, the kidnappings has decrease, the economy has gotten much better and a big part of than is thanks to its good relation with the U.S., I recently read somewhere (don't know the source) that Obama intends to stop supporting Colombia, something that doesn't benefit me or my country, there are other reason why I don't want Obama to win but that's my #1 reason why I don't want him to win.

maybe he wants Columbia to become more independant.

robm_2007
30-08-08, 16:22
almost double posted....

I wouldn't worry. How often do you hear of extremists succeeding in assassinations? Heck, wasn't the last big politician to be assassinated in America JFK in the 60s? Considering how many threats and attempts there have been, that's pretty good that the last one that succeeded was such a long time ago.

if no one has killed Bush, they wont kill Obama.

Andariel
30-08-08, 16:31
My biggest worry for Obama, is that white supremists might try to kill him.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/uselection2008/barackobama/2624438/Police-stop-white-supremacist-plot-to-kill-Barack-Obama.html
I'm sure security has been increased quite a bit since the JFK assassination which was decades ago. The white supremacists are nothing but toothless hillbillies in the deep south living in run down trailers. They can't do anything except yell at their tv screens. ;)

Mr.Burns
30-08-08, 16:41
I'm sure security has been increased quite a bit since the JFK assassination which was decades ago. The white supremacists are nothing but toothless hillbillies in the deep south living in run down trailers. They can't do anything except yell at their tv screens. ;)

First off: I'm not defending White Supremacists in anyway. Second off: That's a gross generalization, which is why I'm commenting on this. Regrettably I have met some in my travels and believe it or not, they're not all toothless hillbillies in the deep south, nor do they all live in trailers. There are quite a few in Western New York alone. Yea, that's right, in the north. I actually have quite a few friends who live in trailers and don't fall under the toothless hillbilly classification. They live in them because the costs are cheaper and they don't want to worry about upkeep costs like what you find in homes.

Andariel
30-08-08, 16:46
I know that generalization doesn't count for all of them. I'm sure many live all throughout America. There's nothing wrong with living in a trailer so instead I said run down trailers. Though I think it's funny to lump these pigs into that generalization. Jerry Springer does a good job of that. lol

Mr.Burns
30-08-08, 16:59
Well that's all fine and dandy but perhaps if you had actually gone out and met some people who live in run down trailers, you would find out that not all of them are toothless hillbillies. Some of them are just down on their luck or can't afford anything due to living in a poor town. See, in my profession, I see every aspect of how humans live, the good the bad and the ugly. Given what I have seen, it's hard to not become racist or prejudiced but I have succeeded in avoiding both. What I have gained is a new perspective on life and humanity. By lumping those extreme idealists with in that generalization you're also lumping together honest, hard working people who are either down on their luck or are simply content to live such a life. Either way, it would be wise to not throw such generalizations about without having seen the truth of such matters. As for Jerry Springer, the show is trash, simple and pure. I wouldn't refer to anything he or his show does as a valid reason for any action or opinion.

Mona Sax
30-08-08, 17:17
I don't think there are going to be criminal charges against Bush, it just wouldn't be a smart political move because it would turn all future presidents, Democrats and Republicans, into sitting ducks. Successfully impeaching a president is almost impossible to do, but the proceedings alone are tedious and painful enough to jam the necessary cooperation between president and Congress. The GOP would hit back hard as soon as they get the chance.

Don't get me wrong, I think Bush is a criminal that should be brought to justice. I just don't think it's likely to happen. Some pawns will be sacrificed, but not the top dogs.

nickp364
30-08-08, 17:46
I pray to God McCain wins. Palin's a good choice and Obama is way too crazy and should never be put in office!

Akhenaton
31-08-08, 04:43
Palin is a pawn in McCain's campaign who's sole purpose is to help him get elected president. She's been appointed to energize the far-right(conservative) section of the Republican party. I don't think it will work because ultimately the Vice-President's role is to be the President if the President cannot perform his duties, and she is clearly not qualified to do so.

Dixie
31-08-08, 06:19
Palin is a pawn in McCain's campaign who's sole purpose is to help him get elected president. She's been appointed to energize the far-right(conservative) section of the Republican party. I don't think it will work because ultimately the Vice-President's role is to be the President if the President cannot perform his duties, and she is clearly not qualified to do so.

Yeah, now reverse everything you just said for obama-biden.

To be honest, I'd rather have someone who isn't qualified to be President as VP, and not someone who isn't qualified to be President as the President.

EDIT: Did I win the gun control argument? Woohoo! Go me!

Goose
31-08-08, 09:43
I don't think there are going to be criminal charges against Bush, it just wouldn't be a smart political move because it would turn all future presidents, Democrats and Republicans, into sitting ducks. Successfully impeaching a president is almost impossible to do, but the proceedings alone are tedious and painful enough to jam the necessary cooperation between president and Congress. The GOP would hit back hard as soon as they get the chance.

Don't get me wrong, I think Bush is a criminal that should be brought to justice. I just don't think it's likely to happen. Some pawns will be sacrificed, but not the top dogs.

Bush is a criminal? You've got to look at the foundation of a crime, heres a quote:

"Earlier today, I ordered America's armed forces to strike military and security targets in Iraq. They are joined by British forces. Their mission is to attack Iraq's nuclear, chemical and biological weapons programs and its military capacity to threaten its neighbors. Their purpose is to protect the national interest of the United States, and indeed the interests of people throughout the Middle East and around the world."

Is there anything wrong with that?

Mona Sax
31-08-08, 09:49
Yes, especially when you're lying.

Elysia
31-08-08, 09:57
... Problem is that they, uh, *didn't* turn out to have the military capability to threaten the US. There were no WoMD (and in before 'we just haven't found them!': their entire frickin' country has been near enough razed to the ground and nothing has been found, ergo I think it is pretty safe to say the WoMD are not there...). There was no real hard evidence that they *ever* had the capabilities. It was all just a paranoid hunch - 'they might have these capabilities! We must do something!'. And, as well meaning as the reasons might have been, going out and killing hundreds of thousands of innocent civilians and harbouring hatred (therefore, rather ironically, escalating a problem you had before...) really isn't something you can ignore. Bush may have *thought* he was doing what was best for everyone, but you know what thought did...

No problem in defending your citizens and your allies when you know you are in danger of attack. Going out and attacking an entire nation just because you *think* they might possibly have the capability to possibly maybe pose a threat to you and your allies, however, is an entire different kettle of fish altogether... I possibly *think* that one of my pupils might, at some point, be a pain in the arse and disrupt learning for everyone else - does that give me the right to give them a pre-emptive detention? Yes, I know it's on a whole different scale, but the principle is the same...

Goose
31-08-08, 10:06
... Problem is that they, uh, *didn't* turn out to have the military capability to threaten the US. There were no WoMD (and in before 'we just haven't found them!': their entire frickin' country has been near enough razed to the ground and nothing has been found, ergo I think it is pretty safe to say the WoMD are not there...). There was no real hard evidence that they *ever* had the capabilities. It was all just a paranoid hunch - 'they might have these capabilities! We must do something!'. And, as well meaning as the reasons might have been, going out and killing hundreds of thousands of innocent civilians and harbouring hatred (therefore, rather ironically, escalating a problem you had before...) really isn't something you can ignore. Bush may have *thought* he was doing what was best for everyone, but you know what thought did...

No problem in defending your citizens and your allies when you know you are in danger of attack. Going out and attacking an entire nation just because you *think* they might possibly have the capability to possibly maybe pose a threat to you and your allies, however, is an entire different kettle of fish altogether... I possibly *think* that one of my pupils might, at some point, be a pain in the arse and disrupt learning for everyone else - does that give me the right to give them a pre-emptive detention? Yes, I know it's on a whole different scale, but the principle is the same...

Well theres your answer then, that quote was from Bill Clinton in 1998 at the start of OPERATION DESERT FOX, bombing iraq because "they turned UN weapons inspectors away", when in reality, the head of that team was forced out of Iraq by the United States due to the bombing raids that were about to begin.

Bill Clinton instigated the 'iraq disarmament crisis', Bush just followed on, yet when Clinton walked on stage and gave his vote to Obama, all the Democrats cheered and clapped, it may aswell have been Bush himself doing it.

Yes, especially when you're lying.
I bet that no-one from Obamas party will pull Clinton up on his passed 'misadventures' that have led to the state of war we are in now, maybe after Obamas in office, but not before.

ShadyCroft
31-08-08, 10:17
I'm not deeply involved in politics, so I wont provide links or bash any party or people. I just wanted to say that the gray areas shouldn't be ignored.

I really don't like abortion, but what if a woman was raped ? What if she had no idea if she was pregnant or not and only realized after 2 or 3 months ? You may say "she should go see a doctor". What if she doesnt have enough for a visit to a doctor ? What if she doesnt have enough money for 2 ? why force her to be burdened by another person in her life ?
Same with gun control. I agree with Justin on reducing total number of victims of gun accidents, but I cannot disagree with Quasimodo who wants to protect herself and her family.

The constitution or who ever's going to be the next president should serve all people, and as you can see there are alot of scenarios, and we shouldn't ignore the gray areas.
I think rules should be more defined and not as easy as "No abortion!". There should be additional restrictions to satisfy more scenarios.

Elysia
31-08-08, 10:52
Well theres your answer then, that quote was from Bill Clinton in 1998 at the start of OPERATION DESERT FOX, bombing iraq because "they turned UN weapons inspectors away", when in reality, the head of that team was forced out of Iraq by the United States due to the bombing raids that were about to begin.

Bill Clinton instigated the 'iraq disarmament crisis', Bush just followed on, yet when Clinton walked on stage and gave his vote to Obama, all the Democrats cheered and clapped, it may aswell have been Bush himself doing it.

For the record... I'm not a Democrat. I'm not American. I have no particular preference for either side, to be honest - all of this political fanaticism is kind of bewildering to me, being a Brit and all . Looking back, I probably would have been against the first Gulf War as the second if the reasons were thus (as it was, I was only a teenager then and so didn't really understand what was going on - although I was under the impression GB senior had something to do with that war as well. Like I said - not so informed on that one, so don't shoot me!). But the fact still stands - someone (in this case, Bush) sent people to attack another country on a hunch, not on solid facts, and as a result, hundreds of thousands of people have died for, effectively, no reason at all, and as a member of the human race (not a nationality), that sits very uncomfortably with me. If it had been the other way around (Iraq launching a pre-emptive strike against America because they were worried they and their allies were going to be attacked), then they would be, without a doubt, painted as the 'bad guys' in this - well, as far as I am concerned, it works both ways. You simply cannot have one rule for you and one rule for everyone else and call it 'fair' and 'democratic'.

Draco
31-08-08, 11:39
I can because of the recent history of US elections. The last time around they had a choice between a brave hero who speaks five foreign languages and a draft dodger who couldn't even name five foreign languages. And which one did they choose?

On the face of it, based on merit, Obama & Biden should walk away with this election, and if it were in any other country, they would do. But this is the US electorate; the same voters who gave Bush not just one but two terms. After that, anything is possible - even "President McCain". God help the world!

I vote based on who will take the least of my freedom and my money, sorry if that means I dont vote socialist.

Geck-o-Lizard
31-08-08, 11:56
McCain = military draft


Veterans React to McCain's Admission That He'll Need a Military Draft

By VoteVets.org (http://www.votevets.org/news?id=0165) | Press Release
PUBLISHED: August 20, 2008

WASHINGTON – Iraq and Afghanistan Veterans today reacted to John McCain’s statement that he doesn’t disagree that we would need a military draft to do everything he wants. At a town hall in Las Cruces, NM, a woman said she could not see doing everything McCain wanted, and would not have the troops under his plan to follow Osama bin Laden to the “gates of hell” without a draft. In response, McCain said, “I don’t disagree with anything you said.” The video of that can be viewed here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aRMFwXGBMfI

Jon Soltz, Iraq War Veteran and Chairman of VoteVets.org said, “At least Senator McCain is being honest. A vote for him is a vote for the draft. Period. Unless Senator McCain radically changes his worldview, there would be a draft to implement his plans.”

Soltz added, “When you take into account his indefinite military commitment to Iraq, his desire to send more troops to Afghanistan, record lows in recruiting and retention, and possibly more wars he is looking to get into, like “Bomb Bomb Bomb” Iran, his numbers don’t add up without a draft. Whether America likes it or not isn’t relevant – a draft is the only way to do everything Senator McCain wants to do. I give him points for being honest and upfront, though, that we’re going to need a draft if he is elected.”
This isn’t the first time that Senator McCain has hinted at a reinstitution of the draft if he is elected. Asked on September 29, 2007 in New Hampshire about the draft, McCain said he would, “consider it.”

Paul H
31-08-08, 12:26
Well theres your answer then, that quote was from Bill Clinton in 1998 at the start of OPERATION DESERT FOX, bombing iraq because "they turned UN weapons inspectors away", when in reality, the head of that team was forced out of Iraq by the United States due to the bombing raids that were about to begin.

Bill Clinton instigated the 'iraq disarmament crisis', Bush just followed on, yet when Clinton walked on stage and gave his vote to Obama, all the Democrats cheered and clapped, it may aswell have been Bush himself doing it.

You are right about Clinton, but his guilt doesn't remove Bush's guilt. They are both war criminals (Clinton because of Kosovo and Bush because of Iraq) and should both stand trial along with Blair and numerous others.

The only reason that still hasn't happened is because the so called "International" War Crimes Tribunal in The Hague, as Radovan Karadzic correctly stated only this week, is no such thing, but is, in reality, NATO's own private court which never puts its own war criminals on trial.

Bowie
31-08-08, 12:38
Who else here feels sorry for all the trillions of sperm every second that try their hardest to swim to find an egg but are killed from lack of egg and a hostile environment.

Ban abortion! Ban egg waste! Egg and sperm donation MUST be mandatory! All eggs must be used! All sperm bank donations will eventually be used!

All women MUST be pregnant at all times. They must not be given a choice!

No potential human will be spared! So many chances at life deserve to be given!

Mad Tony
31-08-08, 12:43
Who else here feels sorry for all the trillions of sperm every second that try their hardest to swim to find an egg but are killed from lack of egg and a hostile environment.

Ban abortion! Ban egg waste! Egg and sperm donation MUST be mandatory! All eggs must be used! All sperm bank donations will eventually be used!

All women MUST be pregnant at all times. They must not be given a choice!

No potential human will be spared! So many chances at life deserve to be given!What has this got to do with Sarah Palin being chosen to be John McCain's running mate? Actually, what's this got to do with politics at all? :confused:

Paul H
31-08-08, 13:04
What has this got to do with Sarah Palin being chosen to be John McCain's running mate? Actually, what's this got to do with politics at all? :confused:

Bowie was using irony.

Quasimodo
31-08-08, 14:37
Who else here feels sorry for all the trillions of sperm every second that try their hardest to swim to find an egg but are killed from lack of egg and a hostile environment.

Ban abortion! Ban egg waste! Egg and sperm donation MUST be mandatory! All eggs must be used! All sperm bank donations will eventually be used!

All women MUST be pregnant at all times. They must not be given a choice!

No potential human will be spared! So many chances at life deserve to be given!
****. Just because a person recognizes that life begins at conception doesn't mean that they're raving mad extremist baby freaks. I don't know what point you're trying to make here, but dramatics like this make political discussions go down the drain hard and fast.

pEhouse
31-08-08, 14:38
^^ And it was debated a few pages back.


I'm so glad to see that women have completely escaped responsibility in your eyes for an unwanted pregnancy.
Sorry, I found this statement to be rather shocking. So, you think a woman is responsible for being raped (because imlc clearly talked about rape victims)?

****. Just because a person recognizes that life begins at conception doesn't mean that they're raving mad extremist baby freaks.

That's up for debate again.. but it's really pointless.

I can because of the recent history of US elections. The last time around they had a choice between a brave hero who speaks five foreign languages and a draft dodger who couldn't even name five foreign languages. And which one did they choose?

On the face of it, based on merit, Obama & Biden should walk away with this election, and if it were in any other country, they would do. But this is the US electorate; the same voters who gave Bush not just one but two terms. After that, anything is possible - even "President McCain". God help the world!

That is kinda sad, but I thought the same thing. I can't believe Bush won twice. Even though I do not believe that everything went off correctly in the counting, and maybe even the voting itself. I'm scared such a thing is going to happen again. Seeing as some people who posted in this thread seem to live in a dream world.

SamReeves
31-08-08, 15:31
Wow, :off: we are as usual.

I think Governor Palin is a great choice. She's a fresh face that voters have been demanding. And she can shoot a rifle too. Frankly I'd prefer Palin over McCain. :D

Drone
31-08-08, 15:35
I think Governor Palin is a great choice. She's a fresh face that voters have been demanding. And she can shoot a rifle too. Frankly I'd prefer Palin over McCain. :D

yup :D and she was fighting against the corruption

Geck-o-Lizard
31-08-08, 15:36
...whilst being corrupt herself. You've heard about the scandal by now I presume?

Quasimodo
31-08-08, 15:38
...whilst being corrupt herself. You've heard about the scandal by now I presume?

Of course there's a scandal around McCain's running mate.

Mad Tony
31-08-08, 15:49
I think Governor Palin is a great choice. She's a fresh face that voters have been demanding. And she can shoot a rifle too. Frankly I'd prefer Palin over McCain. :DI agree with you, I think she's great :D

Drone
31-08-08, 15:56
...whilst being corrupt herself. You've heard about the scandal by now I presume?

I haven't. What about it?

Goose
31-08-08, 16:21
You are right about Clinton, but his guilt doesn't remove Bush's guilt. They are both war criminals (Clinton because of Kosovo and Bush because of Iraq) and should both stand trial along with Blair and numerous others.

The only reason that still hasn't happened is because the so called "International" War Crimes Tribunal in The Hague, as Radovan Karadzic correctly stated only this week, is no such thing, but is, in reality, NATO's own private court which never puts its own war criminals on trial.

Im not trying to remove the guilt, its abit late, i just find it funny that people who blame bush for the war, but think Clinton is great for supporting Obama.

If Bush is a criminal so is Clinton. But obviously not yet, not untill he's worked for Obama abit more.

Goose
31-08-08, 16:27
For the record... I'm not a Democrat. I'm not American. I have no particular preference for either side, to be honest - all of this political fanaticism is kind of bewildering to me, being a Brit and all . Looking back, I probably would have been against the first Gulf War as the second if the reasons were thus (as it was, I was only a teenager then and so didn't really understand what was going on - although I was under the impression GB senior had something to do with that war as well. Like I said - not so informed on that one, so don't shoot me!). But the fact still stands - someone (in this case, Bush) sent people to attack another country on a hunch, not on solid facts, and as a result, hundreds of thousands of people have died for, effectively, no reason at all, and as a member of the human race (not a nationality), that sits very uncomfortably with me. If it had been the other way around (Iraq launching a pre-emptive strike against America because they were worried they and their allies were going to be attacked), then they would be, without a doubt, painted as the 'bad guys' in this - well, as far as I am concerned, it works both ways. You simply cannot have one rule for you and one rule for everyone else and call it 'fair' and 'democratic'.

Im not American either, im British, but this whole Left/Right thing is comical, look at England, we have a Left government and since having one have taken part in six military actions, Lebanon, Sirra leone, Bosnia, Kossovo, Iraq and Afghanistan, thats got to be a record breaker. Yet Americans think a left government there will mean the end of warfare for some strange reason.

"You simply cannot have one rule for you and one rule for everyone else"

Thats the entire reason i posted, you cant have bush as a criminal without Clinton aswell.

If your for Saddam invading Kuwait and taking American hostages, then parading them on TV because he had a debt to civilian companies based in America, then you probably would have been against the war.

(sorry for double post)

Geck-o-Lizard
31-08-08, 17:44
I haven't. What about it?

Basically, she fired Alaska's public safety commissioner because (according to him - it's being investigated by a PI) he refused to fire a state trooper who happened to be her sister's ex husband.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/08/30/us/politics/30trooper.html?_r=1&oref=slogin

So now she's lost a bit of that anti-corruption shine, and her personal responsibility with power (as a governor, let alone VP) is questionable.

Goose
31-08-08, 17:56
Basically, she fired Alaska's public safety commissioner because (according to him - it's being investigated by a PI) he refused to fire a state trooper who happened to be her sister's ex husband.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/08/30/us/politics/30trooper.html?_r=1&oref=slogin

So now she's lost a bit of that anti-corruption shine, and her personal responsibility with power (as a governor, let alone VP) is questionable.

Investigated by a PI? Not an official complaints committie or the guys union?

"Court documents include an e-mail that Sarah Palin sent as a private citizen to the director of the troopers division in August 2005, accusing Wooten of drinking in his patrol car, “illegal hunting techniques,” firing a Taser at his young stepson and threatening to kill her father.

Both Palins were interviewed by state troopers as part of an internal investigation, which dismissed many of the complaints. Wooten was, however, suspended for 10 days for shooting a moose and using the Taser on his stepson, a suspension that Monegan later reduced to five days."

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/26458400/

Its odd how they say an interview 'dismissed many of the complaints', when there were only four, and he as found guilty of two of them, one other was word of mouth and you cant prove if someone was drink driving after its happened.

Shooting family memebers with a taser gets you 5 days off work in america lol.

Geck-o-Lizard
31-08-08, 18:11
On July 28, 2008, a bipartisan committee of the Alaska Legislature voted 12-0 to hire an independent investigator to investigate Palin and her staff for possible abuse of power surrounding the dismissal. A retired state prosecutor, Steve Branchflower, was named on August 1 as the investigator. On August 16, Democratic State Senator Hollis French, who is overseeing the investigation, said that the Palin administration has been cooperating and that subpoenas had not been necessary.

Talis Colberg, the Alaskan Attorney General, and his Department of Law, began conducting their own inquiry in late July at the request of the Governor, after the vote to hire an independent investigator.

Dunno the full details.

Paul H
31-08-08, 18:42
****. Just because a person recognizes that life begins at conception doesn't mean that they're raving mad extremist baby freaks. I don't know what point you're trying to make here, but dramatics like this make political discussions go down the drain hard and fast.

I disagree; I think Bowieís post was a good piece of satire and was relevant to an earlier part of this thread.

I can see both sides of the abortion argument but what I donít understand is why so many pro life supporters in the US base their votes on which candidate *claims* to be closest to their own view on this matter. Havenít they learned anything from the Bush experience? There is a guy who claimed to be passionately pro life and yet has done absolutely nothing in that direction. After eight years of Bush in office, are there any fewer abortions in the US than there were under Clinton?

Do these people think that a McCain/Palin presidency will lead to a ban on abortion in the US? It wonít.

I really wonder if they even care that voting for a professed pro life candidate will make absolutely no difference to the abortion rate, or if it does, that it may even increase it because of the economic policies such candidates usually pursue. Maybe it somehow makes them feel better to believe that their president is "on their side" even though he is doing absolutely nothing to prove it.They should look beyond the sound bites and study the records of these people. But they never do that; instead they judge them by their words, not their actions.

And it is generally that same group of voters - the so called "Christian right" - who also focus only on the *claims* their preferred candidates make about their own religious faith, and again ignore the evidence that proves those claims to be a sham. They think that Bush is one of their co-religionists just because he *claims* to be, yet they ignore his proven and even admitted memberships of the Skull & Bones society and the Bohemian Club. These people never tire of lecturing everyone about the "dangers" and "evils" of kids dressing up on Halloween or reading Harry Potter books, but then they go out and vote for, and even campaign for, candidates that are much more in line with people like Aleister Crowley or Michael Aquino than Benny Hinn or Billy Graham.

Drone
31-08-08, 18:43
Basically, she fired Alaska's public safety commissioner because (according to him - it's being investigated by a PI) he refused to fire a state trooper who happened to be her sister's ex husband.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/08/30/us/politics/30trooper.html?_r=1&oref=slogin

So now she's lost a bit of that anti-corruption shine, and her personal responsibility with power (as a governor, let alone VP) is questionable.

maybe there was another reason than this. and even if it was true she could change. It's kinda we don't trust anyone today but who knows

anyway I don't think Obama and his underlings are clearer

iamlaracroft
31-08-08, 18:49
I disagree; I think Bowieís post was a good piece of satire and was relevant to an earlier part of this thread.

I can see both sides of the abortion argument but what I donít understand is why so many pro life supporters in the US base their votes on which candidate *claims* to be closest to their own view on this matter. Havenít they learned anything from the Bush experience? There is a guy who claimed to be passionately pro life and yet has done absolutely nothing in that direction. After eight years of Bush in office, are there any fewer abortions in the US than there were under Clinton?



right. and Bush is so pro-life that he'll sacrifice thousands of troops and innocent women and children of iraq for the his not-so-hidden agenda.
It never ceases to amuse me how those who are "pro-life" are so willing to shoot and kill in the name of 'freedom' and 'rights'.
how's that for some irony? :whi:

Mad Tony
31-08-08, 18:50
I disagree; I think Bowie’s post was a good piece of satire and was relevant to an earlier part of this thread.

I can see both sides of the abortion argument but what I don’t understand is why so many pro life supporters in the US base their votes on which candidate *claims* to be closest to their own view on this matter. Haven’t they learned anything from the Bush experience? There is a guy who claimed to be passionately pro life and yet has done absolutely nothing in that direction. After eight years of Bush in office, are there any fewer abortions in the US than there were under Clinton?

Do these people think that a McCain/Palin presidency will lead to a ban on abortion in the US? It won’t.

I really wonder if they even care that voting for a professed pro life candidate will make absolutely no difference to the abortion rate, or if it does, that it may even increase it because of the economic policies such candidates usually pursue. Maybe it somehow makes them feel better to believe that their president is "on their side" even though he is doing absolutely nothing to prove it.They should look beyond the sound bites and study the records of these people. But they never do that; instead they judge them by their words, not their actions.

And it is generally that same group of voters - the so called "Christian right" - who also focus only on the *claims* their preferred candidates make about their own religious faith, and again ignore the evidence that proves those claims to be a sham. They think that Bush is one of their co-religionists just because he *claims* to be, yet they ignore his proven and even admitted memberships of the Skull & Bones society and the Bohemian Club. These people never tire of lecturing everyone about the "dangers" and "evils" of kids dressing up on Halloween or reading Harry Potter books, but then they go out and vote for, and even campaign for, candidates that are much more in line with people like Aleister Crowley or Michael Aquino than Benny Hinn or Billy Graham.You seem to be generalizing pro-life supporters a lot there, just like Bowie did earlier. Actually, I'd say you're generalizing Christians as well.

Quasimodo
31-08-08, 19:25
I disagree; I think Bowie’s post was a good piece of satire and was relevant to an earlier part of this thread.

I can see both sides of the abortion argument but what I don’t understand is why so many pro life supporters in the US base their votes on which candidate *claims* to be closest to their own view on this matter. Haven’t they learned anything from the Bush experience? There is a guy who claimed to be passionately pro life and yet has done absolutely nothing in that direction. After eight years of Bush in office, are there any fewer abortions in the US than there were under Clinton?

Do these people think that a McCain/Palin presidency will lead to a ban on abortion in the US? It won’t.

I really wonder if they even care that voting for a professed pro life candidate will make absolutely no difference to the abortion rate, or if it does, that it may even increase it because of the economic policies such candidates usually pursue. Maybe it somehow makes them feel better to believe that their president is "on their side" even though he is doing absolutely nothing to prove it.They should look beyond the sound bites and study the records of these people. But they never do that; instead they judge them by their words, not their actions.

And it is generally that same group of voters - the so called "Christian right" - who also focus only on the *claims* their preferred candidates make about their own religious faith, and again ignore the evidence that proves those claims to be a sham. They think that Bush is one of their co-religionists just because he *claims* to be, yet they ignore his proven and even admitted memberships of the Skull & Bones society and the Bohemian Club. These people never tire of lecturing everyone about the "dangers" and "evils" of kids dressing up on Halloween or reading Harry Potter books, but then they go out and vote for, and even campaign for, candidates that are much more in line with people like Aleister Crowley or Michael Aquino than Benny Hinn or Billy Graham.
Oh really? Do you think that if Obama will president, he will turn America into the ambiguous but awesome vision he's been talking about? Do you think he'll really 'make a difference' and help out the working class because he can identify with them?

Doesn't feel very nice to be generalized, now does it?

And another thing - it is extremely arrogant to march in here and assume you know why millions of people vote the way they do.

Goose
31-08-08, 19:25
I disagree; I think Bowie’s post was a good piece of satire and was relevant to an earlier part of this thread.

I can see both sides of the abortion argument but what I don’t understand is why so many pro life supporters in the US base their votes on which candidate *claims* to be closest to their own view on this matter. Haven’t they learned anything from the Bush experience? There is a guy who claimed to be passionately pro life and yet has done absolutely nothing in that direction. After eight years of Bush in office, are there any fewer abortions in the US than there were under Clinton?

Do these people think that a McCain/Palin presidency will lead to a ban on abortion in the US? It won’t.

I really wonder if they even care that voting for a professed pro life candidate will make absolutely no difference to the abortion rate, or if it does, that it may even increase it because of the economic policies such candidates usually pursue. Maybe it somehow makes them feel better to believe that their president is "on their side" even though he is doing absolutely nothing to prove it.They should look beyond the sound bites and study the records of these people. But they never do that; instead they judge them by their words, not their actions.

And it is generally that same group of voters - the so called "Christian right" - who also focus only on the *claims* their preferred candidates make about their own religious faith, and again ignore the evidence that proves those claims to be a sham. They think that Bush is one of their co-religionists just because he *claims* to be, yet they ignore his proven and even admitted memberships of the Skull & Bones society and the Bohemian Club. These people never tire of lecturing everyone about the "dangers" and "evils" of kids dressing up on Halloween or reading Harry Potter books, but then they go out and vote for, and even campaign for, candidates that are much more in line with people like Aleister Crowley or Michael Aquino than Benny Hinn or Billy Graham.

I take it your a conspiricy theorist? The Skull and bones society is a college fraternity based on masonic orders, nothing more. I dont know why people are so worked up about these things, my father was a Freemason, its nothing to be scared of. They do more for charity then most, and they are a multi faith organisation, which is where there 'evil' is based, "ture christians could never accept Islam or Hinduism".

I was half expecting you to go into the Obama and Race part of that post on pointless reasons to vote, im glad you didnt, because that would be a generalisation, like those you listed above.

Paul H
31-08-08, 19:32
You seem to be generalizing pro-life supporters a lot there, just like Bowie did earlier. Actually, I'd say you're generalizing Christians as well.

Not at all. I acknowledge that there are many Christians who are true to what they believe in and practice what they preach - such as these Christians (http://www.jesus-is-savior.com/False%20Religions/Wicca%20&%20Witchcraft/bohemian_grove_exposed.htm). But any so called Christian who supports the likes of Bush and the rest of his devil worshipping buddies seriously needs a reality check.

And what does it say about Bushís pro life credentials, that the ceremony he attends every year at Bohemian Grove involves the sacrifice of a human baby into a fire? They claim it is only an effigy, not a real baby, but even if that is true, how sick is that?

And take a look at the program of events that Bush and the rest of them are given when they go to Bohemian Grove. In it, there is a photograph of the sacrifice in which someone has actually photoshopped an image of a baby burning in the flames (http://img223.imageshack.us/my.php?image=programskeletongq4.jpg). That isnít the actual baby they sacrifice, but again, what kind of sick mind must someone have to sit at their computer and create such a photo?

But Bush and his friends lap it all up year after year before returning to their phoney lives as good Christians telling everyone how pro life they are.

I donít know for sure whether McCain is a member yet, but if not he probably soon will be.

Quasimodo
31-08-08, 19:37
Not at all. I acknowledge that there are many Christians who are true to what they believe in and practice what they preach - such as these Christians (http://www.jesus-is-savior.com/False%20Religions/Wicca%20&%20Witchcraft/bohemian_grove_exposed.htm). But any so called Christian who supports the likes of Bush and the rest of his devil worshipping buddies seriously needs a reality check.

And what does it say about Bushís pro life credentials, that the ceremony he attends every year at Bohemian Grove involves the sacrifice of a human baby into a fire? They claim it is only an effigy, not a real baby, but even if that is true, how sick is that?

And take a look at the program of events that Bush and the rest of them are given when they go to Bohemian Grove. In it, there is a photograph of the sacrifice in which someone has actually photoshopped an image of a baby burning in the flames (http://img223.imageshack.us/my.php?image=programskeletongq4.jpg). That isnít the actual baby they sacrifice, but again, what kind of sick mind must someone have to sit at their computer and create such a photo?

But Bush and his friends lap it all up year after year before returning to their phoney lives as good Christians telling everyone how pro life they are.

I donít know for sure whether McCain is a member yet, but if not he probably soon will be.

That is a boatload of ****ing crazy. Where do you come up with this ****?

Goose
31-08-08, 19:40
Not at all. I acknowledge that there are many Christians who are true to what they believe in and practice what they preach - such as these Christians (http://www.jesus-is-savior.com/False%20Religions/Wicca%20&%20Witchcraft/bohemian_grove_exposed.htm). But any so called Christian who supports the likes of Bush and the rest of his devil worshipping buddies seriously needs a reality check.

And what does it say about Bush’s pro life credentials, that the ceremony he attends every year at Bohemian Grove involves the sacrifice of a human baby into a fire? They claim it is only an effigy, not a real baby, but even if that is true, how sick is that?

And take a look at the program of events that Bush and the rest of them are given when they go to Bohemian Grove. In it, there is a photograph of the sacrifice in which someone has actually photoshopped an image of a baby burning in the flames (http://img223.imageshack.us/my.php?image=programskeletongq4.jpg). That isn’t the actual baby they sacrifice, but again, what kind of sick mind must someone have to sit at their computer and create such a photo?

But Bush and his friends lap it all up year after year before returning to their phoney lives as good Christians telling everyone how pro life they are.

I don’t know for sure whether McCain is a member yet, but if not he probably soon will be.

And heres the pope without his hat on: http://www.houseofhorrors.com/jpcenobite.JPG

PURE EVIL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!11111111111111111!!!1111 teh NWO

Considering there isnt an official website for that party, and people who believe that masonic lodges and the like's are evil refuse to step near them in reality, im guessing you got this information from one of the many websites named 'bohemianexposed.com" or "Grovesecretsrevealed.com" for your top quality first hand information on the subject?

Paul H
31-08-08, 19:41
That is a boatload of ****ing crazy. Where do you come up with this ****?

Which parts of it are you disputing? Check it all out for yourself if you really think I have made it up. Google is a good place to start.

Then there is a real video you can watch of the Bohemian Grove ceremony, secretly shot by a guy who infiltrated the gathering. It's all there if you really want to know what is going on around you.

Mad Tony
31-08-08, 19:43
I take it your a conspiricy theorist? The Skull and bones society is a college fraternity based on masonic orders, nothing more. I dont know why people are so worked up about these things, my father was a Freemason, its nothing to be scared of. They do more for charity then most, and they are a multi faith organisation, which is where there 'evil' is based, "ture christians could never accept Islam or Hinduism".

I was half expecting you to go into the Obama and Race part of that post on pointless reasons to vote, im glad you didnt, because that would be a generalisation, like those you listed above.I completely agree. There's absolutely nothing wrong with the Freemasons.

That is a boatload of ****ing crazy. Where do you come up with this ****?Tell me about it. Bush a devil worshiper? Please, give me a break. I guess it could be worse though. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_conspiracy_theories#Evil_aliens

@Paul H: This supposed gathering wasn't filmed by that nut Alex Jones was it?

Goose
31-08-08, 19:49
Which parts of it are you disputing? Check it all out for yourself if you really think I have made it up. Google is a good place to start.

Then there is a real video you can watch of the Bohemian Grove ceremony, secretly shot by a guy who infiltrated the gathering. It's all there if you really want to know what is going on around you.

"Google is a good place to start"

Such a scholar.

Geck-o-Lizard
31-08-08, 20:01
@Paul H: This supposed gathering wasn't filmed by that nut Alex Jones was it?

Who's Alex Jones and why is he a nut?

Mona Sax
31-08-08, 20:02
http://i107.photobucket.com/albums/m289/speedymeadows/pp185x_390911a.jpg

Uh-oh.

Mad Tony
31-08-08, 20:06
http://i107.photobucket.com/albums/m289/speedymeadows/pp185x_390911a.jpg Uh-oh.So what if she's in the NRA? There's nothing wrong with that. Besides, there's no magazine in that gun.

Who's Alex Jones and why is he a nut?http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alex_Jones_(radio (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alex_Jones_%28radio)) Read what's on that page and you'll see what I mean.

Mona Sax
31-08-08, 20:08
So what if she's in the NRA? There's nothing wrong with that. Besides, there's no magazine in that gun.
It's not the gun I'm worried about, it's the attitude.

MacGyver for president.

Geck-o-Lizard
31-08-08, 20:08
The wiki page doesn't exist. Anyway could you post something specific?

Mad Tony
31-08-08, 20:10
It's not the gun I'm worried about, it's the attitude.

MacGyver for president.What attitude? All I see is her holding a gun there.

The wiki page doesn't exist. Anyway could you post something specific?Hmm... that's odd.

http://www.infowars.com/
This website should prove just how deranged this guy is.

Mona Sax
31-08-08, 20:12
What attitude? All I see is her holding a gun there.
Which is exactly the point I'm trying to make. You know my opinion on violence, wars and guns. Cowboys in office have not done the world any good, so maybe it's time to give more peaceful people a chance.

Geck-o-Lizard
31-08-08, 20:14
Looks like he is a nutter, but that in itself doesn't disprove his video. Far as I can tell Bohemian Grove is just a gathering of other types of nutters. :\

Mad Tony
31-08-08, 20:20
Which is exactly the point I'm trying to make. You know my opinion on violence, wars and guns. Cowboys in office have not done the world any good, so maybe it's time to give more peaceful people a chance.So just because she likes to hunt and practice shooting that makes her a violent cowgirl?

Geck-o-Lizard
31-08-08, 20:27
Assault rifles and peace do not tend to go together, lol.

Goose
31-08-08, 20:27
Looks like he is a nutter, but that in itself doesn't disprove his video. Far as I can tell Bohemian Grove is just a gathering of other types of nutters. :\

They dont have a website as far as i can see, when you type it into Google, just comes up with conspiricy websites, which if you base your opinions on, will lead to very odd conservations indeed, especially on youtube.

My favouite one at the moment is Baphomet, i learnt about that a while ago as iv always had an interest in Templars, pity others dont.

Apofiss
31-08-08, 20:27
Something along the topic... uhm what was that saying about the lesser evil? Obama seems as an amatuer by the side of McCain, for know that is.

QwjnT4eJJvs

Mad Tony
31-08-08, 20:32
Assault rifles and peace do not tend to go together, lol.Indeed. However, Sarah Palin doesn't shoot people now does she?

Goose
31-08-08, 20:35
Indeed. However, Sarah Palin doesn't shoot people now does she?

Her brother in law does, his own stepson with a taser! lol.

Mona Sax
31-08-08, 20:35
So just because she likes to hunt and practice shooting that makes her a violent cowgirl?
Call me crazy, but a woman that enjoys using guns, hunting and is a proud member of an organization that has the sole porpose of advocating the free availability of things that kill isn't exactly #1 on my potential friends list.

Besides, ever wondered how much fun hunting might be for those on the business end of a rifle? Doesn't scream empathy, either.

http://i107.photobucket.com/albums/m289/speedymeadows/rmcn53l.jpg

Quasimodo
31-08-08, 20:40
Call me crazy, but a woman that enjoys using guns, hunting and is a proud member of an organization that has the sole porpose of advocating the free availability of things that kill isn't exactly #1 on my potential friends list.

Besides, ever wondered how much fun hunting might be for those on the business end of a rifle? Doesn't scream empathy, either.
http://i107.photobucket.com/albums/m289/speedymeadows/rmcn53l.jpg[/IMG]

Does a tiger ever wonder what it might be like for those on the business end of its claws? I fail to see how a person's percieved lack of empathy for an animal which they shoot for food makes them a war nut.

Goose
31-08-08, 20:43
Call me crazy, but a woman that enjoys using guns, hunting and is a proud member of an organization that has the sole porpose of advocating the free availability of things that kill isn't exactly #1 on my potential friends list.

Besides, ever wondered how much fun hunting might be for those on the business end of a rifle? Doesn't scream empathy, either.

http://i107.photobucket.com/albums/m289/speedymeadows/rmcn53l.jpg

"an organization that has the sole porpose of advocating the free availability of things that kill"

Cars can kill, Bikes can kill, knives can kill, toasters can kill, hair driers in bathrooms can kill. What makes these things kill? Humans, the NRA dont promote gang culture or anything of the sort.

Unless you were refering to her being anti-abortion again? I mean if those babies are'nt aborted there going to grow up and own a gun in a Republican world of free violence and terror that only Super ma... i mean..Obama can stop.

Mona Sax
31-08-08, 20:43
Does a tiger ever wonder what it might be like for those on the business end of its claws? I fail to see how a person's percieved lack of empathy for an animal which they shoot for food makes them a war nut.
Do tigers have a choice? Do hunters have a choice? How many of them do it just for fun?

@ Goose: 'Sole purpose'. Unless you turn a gun barrel into a vase, it's absolutely useless for anything but to hurt and kill.

Geck-o-Lizard
31-08-08, 20:44
Cars, bikes, knives, toasters and hairdriers all have purposes that aren't killing - death from them happens by accident, not by design. Guns weren't made for any purpose other than killing.

Does a tiger ever wonder what it might be like for those on the business end of its claws? I fail to see how a person's percieved lack of empathy for an animal which they shoot for food makes them a war nut.

Few people who shoot for sport do it because they really need the food. Don't kid yourself. :\

Quasimodo
31-08-08, 20:47
Few people who shoot for sport do it because they really need the food. Don't kid yourself. :\

Deer are both fun to hunt and make for some tasty sausage. And there's nothing wrong with that.

Mad Tony
31-08-08, 20:47
Few people who shoot for sport do it because they really need the food. Don't kid yourself. :\Correct. However, I see nothing wrong with hunting providing you actually eat what you kill.

Goose
31-08-08, 20:48
Do tigers have a choice? Do hunters have a choice? How many of them do it just for fun?

@ Goose: 'Sole purpose'. Unless you turn a gun barrel into a vase, it's absolutely useless for anything but to hurt and kill.

Target shooting, my uncle does that, he teaches children who are on the Duke of edinburghs award scheme, he also goes shooting at compitions, it has nothing to do with killing things.

Its an olympic sport, its a tradition that some still enjoy. I do.

Mona Sax
31-08-08, 20:49
Deer are both fun to hunt and make for some tasty sausage. And there's nothing wrong with that.
No, of course not, unless you stop for a second and imagine if it's as much fun for the deer. I'm sure it's a lot of fun for sadists to hurt other people, too. Does that make it okay?

Quasimodo
31-08-08, 20:53
No, of course not, unless you stop for a second and imagine if it's as much fun for the deer. I'm sure it's a lot of fun for sadists to hurt other people, too. Does that make it okay?

I don't care how the deer feels when I'm shooting it for food, but you don't see me going around stabbing people. Hunting does not make a person a sociopath.

Mona Sax
31-08-08, 20:54
I see no difference between killing people for fun and killing animals for fun. Both show a total lack of compassion.

SamReeves
31-08-08, 20:58
Which is exactly the point I'm trying to make. You know my opinion on violence, wars and guns. Cowboys in office have not done the world any good, so maybe it's time to give more peaceful people a chance.

And allow such pacifist leaders be taken to the cleaners by two bit dictators.

Palin still rocks IMO! :D At least she's set foot in Iraq, picked up a weapon, put on a flak jacket and knows what the guys and gals go through each day.

Quasimodo
31-08-08, 21:03
I see no difference between killing people for fun and killing animals for fun. Both show a total lack of compassion.

I agree (though I place human life above animal life).

And before you say "but you said hunting deer is fun" - the meat is used for food, so it's not like all hunters shoot deer solely for the "fun of it". If someone doesn't use the meat from the animals they kill for food, that makes them a mere poacher (unless it was a varmint/pest or a coyote or wolf trying to kill livestock).

Mona Sax
31-08-08, 21:05
And allow such pacifist leaders be taken to the cleaners by two bit dictators.
Well, it can't get any worse anyway, and I doubt any two bit dictator would have the resources and inclination to attack an America that confines itself to help to keep peace by supporting international institutions like the UN. How on earth can you promote peace and democracy by spreading violence, hate, lies and torture?

@ Quasimodo - what makes or breaks it for me is whether the meat is needed, which it hardly ever is.

Geck-o-Lizard
31-08-08, 21:06
Palin still rocks IMO! :D At least she's set foot in Iraq, picked up a weapon, put on a flak jacket and knows what the guys and gals go through each day.

I just respect the fact her son will be heading out to the middle east in a few days, which makes the conflict far more personal to her than to most of the politicians who've been making the big decisions about it.

Paul H
31-08-08, 21:11
@Paul H: This supposed gathering wasn't filmed by that nut Alex Jones was it?

If Alex Jones was such a "nut" as you seem to think, there is no way he would manage to attract so many distinguished guests onto his radio show, such as Congressman Ron Paul (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zyJiWYmXGLY).

And he wasnít alone when he infiltrated Bohemian Grove and filmed their rituals. He was accompanied by the highly respected British journalist and film maker Jon Ronson (http://www.jonronson.com/). Is he a "nut" too, MT?

SamReeves
31-08-08, 21:14
I just respect the fact her son will be heading out to the middle east in a few days, which makes the conflict far more personal to her than to most of the politicians who've been making the big decisions about it.

Whoa, stop the press. You're giving credit to a Republican? My God, I thought the day would never arrive.

Well, it can't get any worse anyway, and I doubt any two bit dictator would have the resources and inclination to attack an America that confines itself to help to keep peace by supporting international institutions like the UN. How on earth can you promote peace and democracy by spreading violence, hate, lies and torture?

Last I checked China and Russia still sit on the security council. Would you really like to believe and allow the UN to gain that much control? Mother Russia is still rattling its saber at Poland and the Eastern Bloc, many of whom are partners in NATO. The time for playing fair has passed IMO in such bodies as the UN. NATO and western interests need to protect themselves.

Mad Tony
31-08-08, 21:14
If Alex Jones was such a "nut" as you seem to think, there is no way he would manage to attract so many distinguished guests onto his radio show, such as Congressman Ron Paul (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zyJiWYmXGLY).

And he wasn’t alone when he infiltrated Bohemian Grove and filmed their rituals. He was accompanied by the highly respected British journalist and film maker Jon Ronson (http://www.jonronson.com/). Is he a "nut" too, MT?If he believes that kinds of BS then yes, he is a nut.

Secret organizations ruling the world from behind the scenes make very good fiction (e.g. the Metal Gear Solid series) but in real life it's just too far-fetched.

Quasimodo
31-08-08, 21:15
Well, it can't get any worse anyway, and I doubt any two bit dictator would have the resources and inclination to attack an America that confines itself to help to keep peace by supporting international institutions like the UN. How on earth can you promote peace and democracy by spreading violence, hate, lies and torture?

@ Quasimodo - what makes or breaks it for me is whether the meat is needed, which it hardly ever is.

Fair enough, though it doesn't change my personal stance on hunting.

Mona Sax
31-08-08, 21:21
Last I checked China and Russia still sit on the security council. Would you really like to believe and allow the UN to gain that much control? Mother Russia is still rattling its saber at Poland and the Eastern Bloc, many of whom are partners in NATO. The time for playing fair has passed IMO in such bodies as the UN. NATO and western interests need to protect themselves.
Not more so than Uncle Sam is rattling his. We can either keep rattling and occasionally stab at each other, or we can sit at the same table and actually do something constructive.

Draco
31-08-08, 21:26
Slamming Palin because she is a member of the NRA? That's like slamming Biden for being a member of a golf club.

I honestly don't understand how people can be so afraid of guns.

And equating animals to humans...lol...

Quasimodo
31-08-08, 21:27
Slamming Palin because she is a member of the NRA? That's like slamming Biden for being a member of a golf club.

I honestly don't understand how people can be so afraid of guns.

And equating animals to humans...lol...

Exactly.

Mona Sax
31-08-08, 21:31
Well, slayings with golf clubs happen a little less often than drive-by shootings.

Glad you enjoy my views on life, by the way. I don't quite understand why people need to believe they're worth more than others, but hey, freedom of thought.

Paperdoll
31-08-08, 21:31
http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2008/8/30/121350/137/486/580223

Thoughts?

Also for those that like to pinpoint that a candidate has done drugs in the past, apparently is just as "guilty" (yeah I got from Wikipedia, so sue me :p just thought it was interesting).

Quasimodo
31-08-08, 21:38
http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2008/8/30/121350/137/486/580223

Thoughts?

Also for those that like to pinpoint that a candidate has done drugs in the past, apparently is just as "guilty" (yeah I got from Wikipedia, so sue me :p just thought it was interesting).

I've been reading up on reactions from other forums as well as articles like this one to the announcement of Palin as McCain's running mate. It's stooping, it's low, and it's pathetic, regardless of whether it is true or not. All these articles tell me is that people can't find anything better to criticize her as a potential VP than making wild accusations about her family.

Drone
31-08-08, 21:39
^ equating animals to humans will lead only to cannibalism and sodomy


she isn't a vice-president yet but being bashed by obamers already

Mad Tony
31-08-08, 21:39
I've been reading up on reactions from other forums as well as articles like this one to the announcement of Palin as McCain's running mate. It's stooping, it's low, and it's pathetic, regardless of whether it is true or not. All these articles tell me is that people can't find anything better to criticize her as a potential VP than making wild accusations about her family.Agreed :tmb:

Geck-o-Lizard
31-08-08, 21:40
Whoa, stop the press. You're giving credit to a Republican? My God, I thought the day would never arrive.

I'm giving credit to her for being a politician with personal ties to the war she supports, lol.

Mona Sax
31-08-08, 21:41
I don't think it matters at all. If it's true, I just think it's sad that a family would have to go through such a charade because they think - rightfully or not - it's the only way to save face.

Draco
31-08-08, 21:41
Well, slayings with golf clubs happen a little less often than drive-by shootings.

Glad you enjoy my views on life, by the way. I don't quite understand why people need to believe they're worth more than others, but hey, freedom of thought.

Drive by shootings arent nearly as common as people seem to think. And the places they do happen relatively often, guns arent really needed to perpetuate violence.

Can you honestly tell me that you would actually have to make a conscious decision whether to save the life of a 6 yr old girl or that of a 6 month old dog if you could only save one, and the other would definitely die?

Paperdoll
31-08-08, 21:42
I've been reading up on reactions from other forums as well as articles like this one to the announcement of Palin as McCain's running mate. It's stooping, it's low, and it's pathetic, regardless of whether it is true or not. All these articles tell me is that people can't find anything better to criticize her as a potential VP than making wild accusations about her family.

But aside from that, if it is indeed true, would that affect your view of her? Your support? Would you still trust someone that did something as deceptive to actually run your country?

Note that I support neither candidate (don't know enough about their ideas etc to even consider it) and I'm being neutral here. I'm just interested on how this could affect supporters' thoughts. The actual act, not the news itself (if it indeed confirms as true).

Mona Sax
31-08-08, 21:43
^ equating animals to humans will lead only to cannibalism and sodomy
Exactly, and jumping around a campfire on one foot will lead to heavy rainfall in the middle of the Sahara desert.

Geck-o-Lizard
31-08-08, 21:44
Drive by shootings arent nearly as common as people seem to think. And the places they do happen relatively often, guns arent really needed to perpetuate violence.

What about school shootings? It's difficult to injure/kill lots of people with close-quarters weapons like knives.

Mona Sax
31-08-08, 21:44
Can you honestly tell me that you would actually have to make a conscious decision whether to save the life of a 6 yr old girl or that of a 6 month old dog if you could only save one, and the other would definitely die?
Yes.

Mad Tony
31-08-08, 21:46
What about school shootings? It's difficult to injure/kill lots of people with close-quarters weapons like knives.Actually, somebody could easily inflict a lot of damage with a knife.

Tombreaper
31-08-08, 21:46
I hate that Sarah Palin voice, it reminds me of a cheap American Soap

Mad Tony
31-08-08, 21:47
I hate that Sarah Palin voice, it reminds me of a cheap American SoapWow, not liking a candidate just because of her voice. That's even worse than not liking her because she's in the NRA.

Drone
31-08-08, 21:48
Exactly, and jumping around a campfire on one foot will lead to heavy rainfall in the middle of the Sahara desert.

and I can play the fiddle :wve:

Snazabaz
31-08-08, 21:49
I saw on TV (It could have been BBC news or GMTV) that she was anti-gay marriage
This immideatly put me off her (i'm not gay or anything :p) but I just think that they totally deserve the same rights as any other couple

Mona Sax
31-08-08, 21:49
Actually, somebody could easily inflict a lot of damage with a knife.
Yup. Point is, it doesn't happen. Firearms are the weapons of choice in basically every conflict on this planet, simply because they're much, much more effective than any kind of knife, spear or stone could ever be. Much more people die in wars than ever before due to guns.

Mona Sax
31-08-08, 21:50
and I can play the fiddle :wve:
Great. Wanna start a folk rock duo?

Quasimodo
31-08-08, 21:59
Yup. Point is, it doesn't happen. Firearms are the weapons of choice in basically every conflict on this planet, simply because they're much, much more effective than any kind of knife, spear or stone could ever be. Much more people die in wars than ever before due to guns.

I'd much rather be killed with a gun than a knife. Just sayin'. Taking away guns isn't a panacea for violence (of course) - it just makes people resort to killing each other in slower, more painful ways.

Geck-o-Lizard
31-08-08, 21:59
Actually, somebody could easily inflict a lot of damage with a knife.

Not nearly as much damage as with a gun. They're incomparable.

Knives require close quarters and skill, and can only realistically be used against one victim at a time.
Guns can be used at almost any distance, require only a fair aim, and can be used against multiple people very rapidly.

jarhead
31-08-08, 22:01
I hate that Sarah Palin voice, it reminds me of a cheap American Soap


:vlol: lmao

Please bear in mind, I'm quite ignorant towards politics unless its in this board

I dont really see why Mccain picked someone young, I thought they originally slated Obama for his inexperience.


I hate elections, as my mum pointed out, its all about how much **** you can pull up about youe opponents

Mad Tony
31-08-08, 22:02
I'd much rather be killed with a gun than a knife. Just sayin'. Taking away guns isn't a panacea for violence (of course) - it just makes people resort to killing each other in slower, more painful ways.Exactly. Look at the situation here in the UK. Guns are virtually non-existent here yet people are still getting murdered a lot. It just goes to show that even if you ban guns out right, people are just gonna fund other ways to murder. (the only people that have guns here are the military and criminals)

Tombreaper
31-08-08, 22:03
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 just don't like her voice, that's all mr M.Tony

Mad Tony
31-08-08, 22:04
I just don't like her voice, that's all mr M.TonyThat really has no place in a political thread though.

Mona Sax
31-08-08, 22:04
I'd much rather be killed with a gun than a knife. Just sayin'. Taking away guns isn't a panacea for violence (of course) - it just makes people resort to killing each other in slower, more painful ways.
Violence will never disappear, agreed. I still prefer less people to die in a violent way, however. Besides, being shot is hardly a pleasure (all Schwarzenegger movies aside).

Mad Tony, ever wondered where criminals get their guns? Same factories. Most guns are legal at some point.

Paperdoll
31-08-08, 22:07
Exactly. Look at the situation here in the UK. Guns are virtually non-existent here yet people are still getting murdered a lot. It just goes to show that even if you ban guns out right, people are just gonna fund other ways to murder. (the only people that have guns here are the military and criminals)

Are they getting murdered alot or the media is just broadcasting it more? That happens alot you know, the public ends up with a wrong idea of the actual situation.

That really has no place in a political thread though.

The thread is about an opinion on Sarah Palin me thinks. Hence it's on topic IMO. Don't like it, ignore it.

Mad Tony
31-08-08, 22:08
Are they getting murdered alot or the media is just broadcasting it more? That happens alot you know, the public ends up with a wrong idea of the actual situation.Well, they seem to be getting murdered more than they were a couple of years ago. And as far as I know, the media was just as prevalent back then as it is today.

Tombreaper
31-08-08, 22:08
That really has no place in a political thread though.

It certainly has a place in a political thread.

Paperdoll
31-08-08, 22:10
Well, they seem to be getting murdered more than they were a couple of years ago. And as far as I know, the media was just as prevalent back then as it is today.

At least here, the media today is very hung up on publicising and making a formidable spectacle of anything bad. Be it a robbery, a murder, whatever. Got time to fill? Well here comes whatever they can dig out... doesn't mean it didn't exist before, maybe it just means it's getting more attention. We got a bank robbery here with hostages that got milked over days... for a ****ing bank robbery. That's the media nowadays for you. Sensationalist.

Quasimodo
31-08-08, 22:10
At least here, the media today is very hung up on publicising and making a formidable spectacle of anything bad. Be it a robbery, a murder, whatever. Got time to fill? Well here comes whatever they can dig out... doesn't mean it didn't exist before, maybe it just means it's getting more attention. We got a bank robbery here with hostages that got milked over days... for a ****ing bank robbery. That's the media nowadays for you. Sensationalist.

If it bleeds, it leads.

Tombreaper
31-08-08, 22:14
If it bleeds, it leads.


Prepare for a bleeds 'n' leads Republican Convention

Mad Tony
31-08-08, 22:14
Prepare for a bleeds 'n' leads Republican ConventionWhat's that supposed to mean? :confused:

Quasimodo
31-08-08, 22:18
Prepare for a bleeds 'n' leads Republican Convention

I'm sure both sides will be thoroughly covered in mud long before November.

Tombreaper
31-08-08, 22:23
I'm sure both sides will be thoroughly covered in mud long before November.

So muddy that there s nothing to vote anymore

Geck-o-Lizard
31-08-08, 22:29
As I posted earlier, police in Minneapolis have been pretty aggressively raiding & arresting peaceful, lawful anti-GOP (http://www.tombraiderforums.com/showthread.php?t=133333) protestors.

Paul H
31-08-08, 22:35
I see that McCain is all over the news channels visiting Mississippi, making sure to be seen "doing his bit" to help out as Hurricane Gustav approaches. Does anyone know if he did anything like this the last time when Hurricane Katrina hit the same region ... and when he didnít have an election to fight?

Back in April he was publicly attacking Bush for doing so little to help out in New Orleans, claiming that had he been the president, he would have flown over there immediately.

So where was he at that very moment? He was with none other than ... President Bush himself, tucking into a big birthday cake his friend Bush had just presented him with. Look at the picture of the two of them that day, laughing and enjoying themselves as they look forward to eating that scrumptious cake. Doesnít McCain look concerned about the suffering of the people of New Orleans whose lives had just been devastated by that hurricane?

http://img174.imageshack.us/img174/9491/slide1550oq8.jpg

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/04/24/mccain-and-katrina-ravage_n_98470.html

Geck-o-Lizard
31-08-08, 22:43
It does look like a very nice birthday cake. I wonder if it was chocolate sponge.

Forwen
31-08-08, 22:45
Actually it looks somewhat soggy.

tlr online
31-08-08, 23:22
http://img174.imageshack.us/img174/9491/slide1550oq8.jpg

It does look like a very nice birthday cake. I wonder if it was chocolate sponge.

Actually it looks somewhat soggy.

Well they obviously used the wrong type of flower, because it's depressed in the middle.

Forwen
31-08-08, 23:35
Portrayal Of Obama As Snob Hailed As Step Forward For Blacks

qgVUxmjf0G8

Geck-o-Lizard
31-08-08, 23:59
Well they obviously used the wrong type of flower, because it's depressed in the middle.

Or too much icing... But you can never have too much icing.

Tombreaper
01-09-08, 00:06
Or too much icing... But you can never have too much icing.

Or too much water, bursting of a dike anyone?