Jump to content
Political Discussion Forums

McCain picks woman for VP slot


jdobbin

Recommended Posts

You want me to refute an opinion from Wikipedia? :blink: I'm saying that's not the purpose of the second amendment. There was distrust of a federal army, so the states wanted to be able to have their own militia to protect themselves against an attack if need be. It wasn't so individuals could take up arms against the government should they disagree with the laws.

The Second Amendment is the most misunderstood provision contained in the Bill of Rights. The purpose of the Second Amendment is to guarantee the states' ability to maintain independent militias composed of state residents available to be called upon to defend the country should its security be threatened. The Founding Fathers' reliance on state militias to perform this military task stemmed from their deep distrust of a standing federal army. link

Fyi, Wikipedia doesn't qualify as a "version" of our Constitution. ;)

Come now you two. Both of your ideologies are very similar. Can't you get along?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 1.3k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Is that the best you can come up with? Who said anything about controlling birth control, you fool! And in typical conservative fashion, you don't deal directly with the issue of women over 40 having babies because they are opposed to abortion and birth control -- instead, your fascist ideology demands that no one ask the question! Well, other people outside of the conservative echo chamber that you live in are asking, so stay inside your fortress of FoxNews, Rush Limbaugh, FreeRepublic, the Pajamas Media and the Townhall bloggers if you can't deal with it!

unlike you, I don't think it's any of my business.

How telling that you think it is yoru business.

name calling has been noted.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think these stages of development, all in the third trimester after most abortions are performed, would be a better cut off line to start granting human rights. But even then, those rights shouldn't be absolute! If there are birth defects or the possibility that having the baby might endanger the mother's life, a third trimester abortion may be necessary. It was already pointed out by someone else that most Western European countries follow a policy of relatively free access to abortion in the first and 2nd trimester, with restrictions on third trimester abortion; this seems to be the most sensible policy to follow!

Wow, and after all of your blowing, sucking and wheezing, we agree.

So you would like to see the conservative governmnet in Canada introduce legislation in Canada restricting abortion in the third trimester with logical limits on health concerns?

As you know, Canada has ZERO restrictions on third trimester abortions. The only developed country in the world that is that way. Should Stephen Harper ve expecting your vote WIP?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Lets recap here. I said Clarence Thomas was not a qualified jurist. I pointed out that he had only one years experience as a judge (among other things).

Instead of presenting one iota of evidence that he was a qualified jurist you keep calling me racist (and "rube", I think there was also some other sort of insult in another thread as well)

Are your arguments/mind so weak thats all you can come up with ?

Lol. Leave me out of that one! I am with AmericanWoman on this one. I believe the only reason she was put on the ticket was to win back the right wing Christian vote john McCain has alienated due to his positions on gay rights and abortion (neutral).

She is a transparent attempt to woo the Christian evangelist voters whom the Republicans believe put Carter in office, then Reagan, Bush and Bush Jr. and who were not mobilized sufficiently to keep Clinton out of office.

This pick has nothing to do about Hilary votes. In fact it is to win precisely the votes of people who detest everything Hilary Clinton stands for.

To me Palin is an embarassement. She has zero qualifications. She is there because she is anti-abortionist and a lightening rod to try attract that vote. No more no less.

It is a testament to the dumbing down of US politics when such an idiot can be put one heart beat away from such an office.

Does anyone think this women can talk down Vladimir Putin or that mad man in Iran or the Chinese or other mad lunatics?

Oh I know. She's tough. She told oil companies they can drill in National Parks. She sounds real tough.

Ah but ignore her daughter. We are all sinners. Yoohoo if her daughter had used a god damn contraceptive we would have one less 17 year old child mother.

Point is if her preachings don't work in the real world whether it be with anyone else or her daughter.

But please do go on what a wonderful qualified candidate she is. I mean she is just like Ronny. A sportscaster.

Pathetic. Just bloody pathetic. The ghost of Anita Bryant has been raised and returns.

Edited by Rue
Link to comment
Share on other sites

...But please do go on what a wonderful qualified candidate she is. I mean she is just like Ronny. A sportscaster.

Pathetic. Just bloody pathetic. The ghost of Anita Bryant has been raised and returns.

The ghost of Anita Bryant never departed, and effectively haunted the Democrats to defeat in 2004 with "family values". Strident opinion about the best "qualifications" in a candidate is the hallmark of political losers, including not recognizing the potential for an "unqualified" Barack Obama to win the election. Any reference to President Reagan only underscores that point.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm saying that's not the purpose of the second amendment. There was distrust of a federal army, so the states wanted to be able to have their own militia to protect themselves against an attack if need be. It wasn't so individuals could take up arms against the government should they disagree with the laws.

The Second Amendment is the most misunderstood provision contained in the Bill of Rights. The purpose of the Second Amendment is to guarantee the states' ability to maintain independent militias composed of state residents available to be called upon to defend the country should its security be threatened. The Founding Fathers' reliance on state militias to perform this military task stemmed from their deep distrust of a standing federal army. link

Fyi, Wikipedia doesn't qualify as a "version" of our Constitution

I think you will have to admit that the architects of the Constitution knowing the nature of government attempted to prevent tyranny from raising it's head in America. The "deep distrust of a standing federal army" was as you point out a concern. This is highlighted in the Wikipedia article, sighted by Drea, as a distrust of government generally. America is about the only country who can openly harbor this feeling toward their government and it is because of the concerns the founding fathers had regarding government. A standing federal army is directed by the sitting administration so it is logical to think that the deep distrust of a federal standing army extends to that administration. There are two possibilities that can occur with a strong standing federal army - a military coup of the democratically elected sitting administration or a seizing of dictatorial power by the sitting administration. It is thus that the second amendment became so important. It was the "second" concern, which is indicative of it's importance, of the Founding Fathers.

Drea, for the first time in her life probably, stated she recognizes the need for it. Quite a departure from a gun control advocate.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The ghost of Anita Bryant never departed, and effectively haunted the Democrats to defeat in 2004 with "family values". Strident opinion about the best "qualifications" in a candidate is the hallmark of political losers, including not recognizing the potential for an "unqualified" Barack Obama to win the election. Any reference to President Reagan only underscores that point.

Hear! Hear!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

My opinion

Pro Abortion under certain pretext such as rape, or the mothers extreme young age, or inability to adequetly care for her child

Pro stem cell research.

Pretty wild for a crazy gun nut huh?

And why are we worried about Obama and Palin's experience? Both are most likely Just as capable as George W Bush and probably a good deal smarter. As far as Palin is concerned I look at her as a women with a good bit of common sense to her. She is also not tainted by Washington DC Politics (yet). Maybe that good country common sense will rub off on Mccain a bit. Weve had career politicians for president for so long, nobody seems to like it, why not try something different.

Edited by moderateamericain
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Straw man argument, I'm not saying that the restricting automatic weapons and and bombs and military hardware is wrong. I'm talking rifles, handguns, shotguns. And were talking about disarming the population. Which is what I'm against. I don't think anyone needs a fully automatic AR 15, heck even the Military doesn't use fully automatic until you get to m60 or bigger. Number 1 its a waste of ammo, number two you can't hit shit fully automatic in small arms fire.

You're weaselling. Are you saying that other countries, like Japan, Canada or the UK, which greatly restrict firearms, such as hand guns or automatic weapons, are democracies or not? Could you live with that kind of restriction in the US or would the US be "Not a democracy" and cause you to consider the life of a terrorist?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I wish this discussion would get away from abortion, particularly as it applies to Palin and her own life choices. It's a total canard and, frankly, whether or not Palin decided to have her child and/or how she decided to act during her pregnancy is her own damn business. Isn't that what "choice" is about?!

Except that as governor, and a potential president, she would be making those choices for others, and clearly sees no problem with that - based on her own Christian values. That is why her sense of Christian morality is perfectly acceptable for political discussions.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Nobody asked you to like it...vote accordingly. One vote to a customer.

The vetting process eliminates political liabilities, not pregnant teenagers.

To a "family values" candidate, a pregnant teenager IS a political liability, especially a candidate on record as opposing sex education and birth control.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I believe the only reason she was put on the ticket was to win back the right wing Christian vote john McCain has alienated due to his positions on gay rights and abortion (neutral).

She is a transparent attempt to woo the Christian evangelist voters whom the Republicans believe put Carter in office, then Reagan, Bush and Bush Jr. and who were not mobilized sufficiently to keep Clinton out of office.

This pick has nothing to do about Hilary votes. In fact it is to win precisely the votes of people who detest everything Hilary Clinton stands for.

To me Palin is an embarassement. She has zero qualifications. She is there because she is anti-abortionist and a lightening rod to try attract that vote. No more no less.

Whatever she is, she is sure taking the limelight away from Barry. Will we ever find out if he has any substance? Sigh.

She does not stand for anything you stand for, most certainly. Politically you are a Canadian and perhaps will always view America with a critical and questioning bafflement. Not that there aren't Americans that like Canadian politics, such as Americanwoman who think America needs a more caring government, like Canada.

It is easier to accept that than stand on your own two feet and pull your weight in co-operation with your neighbor. It's too hard; and the government should do something about that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I agree Dobbin that women in politics have had mixed experiences (which, come to think of it, is similar to the experiences of men).

Men don't generally face commentary on their looks or what they wear as frequently, I would think.

Also, men are not judged as harshly for things that happen in regards to their family.

By and large, I think women running from the Right will be/are more successful than women running from the Left.

I'm not sure I've seen any evidence of that.

Palin's nomination seems to have solidified the religious base of the party that was grumbling about pretty much everyone else that was on the consideration list.

I know the Republicans are saying that the vetting of the candidate was thorough and considered, the Alaskan media and political set are saying no one really spoke to them about the candidate. In short, it seems a decision was made at the last minute by McCain to shake things up, appeal to the base and hope that nothing in Palin's past, present or future performance would hurt the Republicans.

The fact that the vetting committee thought the investigation into the firing of a trooper would not have an impact on Palin when even Alaska is awaiting to see the results shows that McCain was taking a big chance. An unencumbered VP is the gold standard.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Also, men are not judged as harshly for things that happen in regards to their family.

I think any male candidate who voted against sex education in schools and was opposed to birth control would face smirking attacks if his daughter became pregnant (or his son got a girl pregnant out of wedlock).

Such attacks aren't meant to be on the girl but on the politician, for the ironic personal failure of the policies he is insisting other familes follow.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You're weaselling. Are you saying that other countries, like Japan, Canada or the UK, which greatly restrict firearms, such as hand guns or automatic weapons, are democracies or not? Could you live with that kind of restriction in the US or would the US be "Not a democracy" and cause you to consider the life of a terrorist?

If, god forbid, the US government tried to disarm the population of the United states, Id do whatever I could to stop it. The UK is on its way to losing its democracy. Canada Im not really sure about you guys yet.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

To a "family values" candidate, a pregnant teenager IS a political liability, especially a candidate on record as opposing sex education and birth control.

I wonder if they have sex ed in the Alaskan public school system? Or did her daughter attend a private school?

Someone said the other day that "Abstinence as a form of birth control is just not working and they should take it out of the class room". I don't remember it actually being instituted. I know there are people that wish to do so much to the angst of the politically correct crowd but where has it been implemented or even just mentioned as an aside in sex ed classes.

You should find out if sex ed is offered in Alaskan public schools before you start making statements about her legislating her "family values" in the White House. Besides the Department of Education in the United States does not design a curriculum for the States. It is only there to provide some financial assistance unlike the Canadian federal government which oversees all our education and can dictate to provinces what the curriculum should include.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think any male candidate who voted against sex education in schools and was opposed to birth control would face smirking attacks if his daughter became pregnant (or his son got a girl pregnant out of wedlock).

He certainly might face questions on the policy choices he made. I'm not sure if he would be judged as harshly as a parent as the mother would be.

Such attacks aren't meant to be on the girl but on the politician, for the ironic personal failure of the policies he is insisting other familes follow.

By that same token, the questions by Democrats of Palin probably have to softened. Unlike a male candidate, the questions might be seen as an attack on the woman rather than the politician.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If, god forbid, the US government tried to disarm the population of the United states, Id do whatever I could to stop it. The UK is on its way to losing its democracy. Canada Im not really sure about you guys yet.

We do have some American influence but we're mostly influenced by Europe politically.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I wonder if they have sex ed in the Alaskan public school system? Or did her daughter attend a private school?

Someone said the other day that "Abstinence as a form of birth control is just not working and they should take it out of the class room". I don't remember it actually being instituted. I know there are people that wish to do so much to the angst of the politically correct crowd but where has it been implemented or even just mentioned as an aside in sex ed classes.

Tt has been implimented in many US jurisdiction. Sex ed is a major controversy down there, and even in districts which do teach actual sex education parents must give specific consent for their kid to be included and many religious families refuse. The teaching of "abstinence only" is actually growing down there as the religious wackos like Palin set about taking over school districts to remake them in their own image.

• More than one in five adolescents (21% of females and 24% of males) received abstinence education without receiving instruction about birth control in 2002, compared with 8–9% in 1995.[10]

Sex Ed in the US

You should find out if sex ed is offered in Alaskan public schools before you start making statements about her legislating her "family values" in the White House.

Why? She has said she would oppose public funding for sex education in Alaskan schools. And finding out which school her daughter went to, whether it had sex ed, and whether her daughter was allowed to attend is a bit beyond my researching skills at the moment. I'm sure the press is looking into it, though.

Besides the Department of Education in the United States does not design a curriculum for the States. It is only there to provide some financial assistance unlike the Canadian federal government which oversees all our education and can dictate to provinces what the curriculum should include.

Republican governments have, in the past, stipulated that their views on things like sex ed and abortion are a requirement in order to get the funding made available not only to states but to other countries. This includes refusing to fund anti AIDS programs in Africa which advise on birth control.

Last month, the U.N. special envoy for HIV/AIDS in Africa, Stephen Lewis, and others declared that the administration’s policy of emphasizing abstinence-only programs and cutting federal funding for condoms has undermined Uganda’s HIV/AIDS effort. Sadly, Uganda is not alone. Ideology Hinders AIDS fight

Link to comment
Share on other sites

We do have some American influence but we're mostly influenced by Europe politically.

Yeah I gather that from alot of peoples beliefs on the forum. Only thing I can say about that is Europe has had thousands of years to become a world power and the only thing they managed to do in the last two centuries is peak and crash, start a couple of wars, and lose any real ability to project power. I mean the Europeanian Union is a great idea economically. I think they are on the rebound but theres not a single country that can say they have achieved what the US has in 230+ years. If I were a canadian politician I would seek my own council then look at anything the European's have done.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest American Woman
Come now you two. Both of your ideologies are very similar. Can't you get along?

Of course, and we do. "Getting along" doesn't mean constant agreement. How boring would that be?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

To a "family values" candidate, a pregnant teenager IS a political liability, especially a candidate on record as opposing sex education and birth control.

That remains to be seen....if Palin's daughter carries full term with marriage she shall have fulfilled the expectations of her ideological supporters (and voters). Responsibility for consequences carries a lot more weight than a simple slogan and vacuum aspiration, with or with sex education.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest American Woman
No, it's not a moot point, you just want to dodge the question because you know very well how rightwing media would have covered the story! Talk about going after the children, one of your heroes Rush Limbaugh had the gall to make fun of Chelsea Clintons looks when she was only 13 years old! The whining about causing harm to Sarah Palin's child is just more Republican hypocrisy!

And McCain himself made fun of Chelsea's looks shortly after she turned 18. I guess that means Palin's 17 year old daughter will soon be 'fair game.' <_<

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.




  • Tell a friend

    Love Political Discussion Forums? Tell a friend!
×
×
  • Create New...