Sarah Palin is McCain's Choice for VP

Let me be clear about one thing that really gets under my skin. Going by the initial statement the McCain/Palin campaign put out, Governor Palin said the following:

"Our beautiful daughter Bristol came to us with news that as parents we knew would make her grow up faster than we had ever planned. We're proud of Bristol's decision to have her baby and even prouder to become grandparents," Sarah and Todd Palin said in the brief statement.

Good for them. Good for them that they're living under liberal rules that allow this to BE a "DECISION" in the first place.

Boo. Boo to them for being the kind of people who ACKNOWLEDGE that it is a "DECISION" and yet be the same people who make one decision for themselves, and want to make that same decision for you. You don't get to make the decision they did. Not if they have their way.
 
Kind of a what if question, but i have to wonder, what would she have thought if her daughter decided to get an abortion?
 
Kind of a nonquestion.

We can guess how she'd react, but the fact is that it would never happen. The easiest of reasons being her age, but also that her mother is seeking a high political position; pregnancy can add problems, an abortion would ruin it right this instant.
 
[quote name='chasemurata']I just read about Palin's daughter. That's... a bit... interesting.


I guess someone thought "I'd hit that" and actually hit it.[/QUOTE]

lol...well, she is pretty good looking.
 
[quote name='thrustbucket']Why are you wasting time here? Shouldn't you have the Elephant pinata up by now with a few kegs open?[/quote]

Whoa...That's eerie. Were you at my birthday party?

[quote name='CaseyRyback']Republicans don't want to talk about the personal stuff in this election because all the shady shit is on their side.[/quote]

Oh come now. I'm not about to go running through the fields hand in hand with thrust now, but Democrats are hardly in a position to be claiming the moral high ground when it comes to sexual hypocrisy. Edwards was Mr. Family Values....until he fucked around on his devoted, dying wife (Evangelicals take note: HE CHOSE LIFE!!!) And then there's Eliot Spitzer, who seemed to have a hard time choosing between fucking prostitutes and prosecuting them. And of course, there's Old King Poon Hound himself.

True, the contrast just seems sharper with the Republicans since they're so darn intent on dictating what goes on behind closed bedroom doors, but let's not act like they're the only ones making fools of themselves.
 
Politicians, historically are morally corrupt. Especially in their personal lives. I think it's a safe assumption that in the history of humanity, pretty much all people of power succumbed to things the rest of society would find reprehensible were they caught.

It just so happens that Republicans contain nearly all the puritanical types in their party, so it's especially guffaw worthy to the peanut gallery when a Republican gets caught doing what all politicians do. It's somehow newsworthy and eyebrow raising. It's just supposed hypocritical comedy.
 
That's what you don't get, thrust.

IT ***IS*** hypocritical comedy.

Barney Frank gets to sleep with men and stay in office, and Larry Craig and Mark Foley don't. Wanna guess why?

It's not that the Democrats are ne'er do wells who invite every scruffy sinner into their ranks - but, rather, we embrace people of difference. A party of inclusion through diversity. Single parents, unwed parents, multiracial couples, gay/lesbian couples - ALL will find hostility in the Republican party.

That's the difference. Therein lies the hypocrisy.

Now, if Larry Craig said "fuck it, I'm gay and I love my country!" he'd not get re-elected (not in his district), but he would become a folk hero amongst homosexuals. The people who might vote for him (his positions on issues notwithstanding). Instead, he hems and haws and denies it, further exhibiting Republican disdain for homosexuality.

You can't try to argue that sexual corruption in each party is even remotely similar without coming off sounding like some fool who's only half good at convincing even himself.
 
[quote name='Tybee']Oh come now. I'm not about to go running through the fields hand in hand with thrust now, but Democrats are hardly in a position to be claiming the moral high ground when it comes to sexual hypocrisy. Edwards was Mr. Family Values....until he fucked around on his devoted, dying wife (Evangelicals take note: HE CHOSE LIFE!!!) And then there's Eliot Spitzer, who seemed to have a hard time choosing between fucking prostitutes and prosecuting them. And of course, there's Old King Poon Hound himself.

True, the contrast just seems sharper with the Republicans since they're so darn intent on dictating what goes on behind closed bedroom doors, but let's not act like they're the only ones making fools of themselves.[/quote]

There's no "seems" about it. When it comes to hypocritical sexual degenerates, the Republican party hits it out of the park.

You really think Foley compares to Clinton? Larry Craig compares to Spitzer? And let's not mention the conservative pundit peanut gallery that features such gems as Ted Haggard and Jeff Gannon.

Yeah Spitzer's crime is illegal, and he is a hypocrite, but it's hard for me to see who the victim was. The other Dems were involved in consentual affairs - immoral? yeah sure, but hardly illegal.

And for the record, I don't have any problems with homosexuals. I do have problems with legislators who use public restrooms as a makeshift bordello, prominent politicians who use their position to take advantage of teenagers, and hate mongers who make a living out of demonizing behavior that they themselves engage in.
 
[quote name='Tybee']Whoa...That's eerie. Were you at my birthday party?



Oh come now. I'm not about to go running through the fields hand in hand with thrust now, but Democrats are hardly in a position to be claiming the moral high ground when it comes to sexual hypocrisy. Edwards was Mr. Family Values....until he fucked around on his devoted, dying wife (Evangelicals take note: HE CHOSE LIFE!!!) And then there's Eliot Spitzer, who seemed to have a hard time choosing between fucking prostitutes and prosecuting them. And of course, there's Old King Poon Hound himself.

True, the contrast just seems sharper with the Republicans since they're so darn intent on dictating what goes on behind closed bedroom doors, but let's not act like they're the only ones making fools of themselves.[/QUOTE]

We are talking about the candiates at hand, not others. Also I don't think what Edwards did is worse than what McCain did. I find what McCain did to be much more sickening and repulsive.
 
[quote name='Tybee']And of course, there's Old King Poon Hound himself.

True, the contrast just seems sharper with the Republicans since they're so darn intent on dictating what goes on behind closed bedroom doors, but let's not act like they're the only ones making fools of themselves.[/quote]

Bill Clinton got a blowjob behind closed doors, that's hardly poon. If were going to be discussing rank here, John F. Kennedy wins for banging Marilyn Monroe, and possibly getting his brother in on the deal as well.

Bill Clinton can't hold a fucking candle to that (pun intended).

~HotShotX
 
[quote name='CaseyRyback']The President has influence over what children get taught in school. This means that they set the course for things like sex ed programs. Her getting knocked up while her mother preaches abstinence only shows the flaws in that policy. It also shows that she is a bad parent. She should know if her daughter is sexually active, and if she knew and did nothing that makes her an even bigger failure in my mind.
[/QUOTE]

But that's not reason to drag her daughter through the mud over this.

I already new abstinence only education was a bad idea, and it was already one of many things I don't like about Palin.

People could have attacked her, and still can attack her, for her views on sex education without dragging her family into the mess that is modern politics. Again, as Obama has rallied for, attack people on the issues not their personal lives.

I realize it's murkier when there's a situation like this where something flies in the face of a candidate's beliefs. But it's not like Palin herself did something she spoke against. It was her soon to be an adult daughter.

Though I do have to admit that it's poetic justice for someone espousing those views to get a dose of reality at home, but I still can't condone bloggers etc. having a field day with that after all the bitching us bloggers did about Rove and the conservative bloggers doing this same kind of shit.
 
Abstinence-only education doesn't work.

Scientific data has failed to capture the public imagination - we needed some sizzle to sell this and the law of probabilities saw fit to deliver.

This is going to be a fun election to watch. :bouncy:
 
[quote name='mykevermin']
You can't try to argue that sexual corruption in each party is even remotely similar without coming off sounding like some fool who's only half good at convincing even himself.[/QUOTE]

I wouldn't do that. It's simple really: One party has more self imposed rules than the other (that they try to use to legislate with). So it's always going to be incumbent on the latter to make fun of the former when they screw up. Just sucks that, much like the government, we just accept corruption as part of life, and try to work around it.

So have your fun. It won't be the last time this happens. This is the nature of the relationship between Democrats and Republicans. "Hey, look, you preachy guys screwed up, guess your old archaic BS principles and values don't work after all, eh? Maybe you should embrace such things as human nature and choice ignoring consequence as social progress like we have!"

Stuff like this makes me more and more think that what being "progressive" really means is molding society around human nature, shedding all those old no-fun rules, rather than society trying to keep human nature disciplined. But perhaps that's the essence of Progressives vs. Conservatives in a nutshell?
 
Last edited by a moderator:
[quote name='thrustbucket']I wouldn't do that. It's simple really: One party has more self imposed rules than the other (that they try to use to legislate with). So it's always going to be incumbent on the latter to make fun of the former when they screw up. Just sucks that, much like the government, we just accept corruption as part of life, and try to work around it.

So have your fun. It won't be the last time this happens. This is the nature of the relationship between Democrats and Republicans. "Hey, look, you preachy guys screwed up, guess your old archaic BS principles and values don't work after all, eh? Maybe you should embrace such things as human nature and choice ignoring consequence as social progress like we have!"

Stuff like this makes me more and more think that what being "progressive" really means is molding society around human nature, shedding all those old no-fun rules, rather than society trying to keep human nature disciplined. But perhaps that's the essence of Progressives vs. Conservatives in a nutshell?[/QUOTE]

Your such a joke thrust. You claim to be moderate but looking through multiple topics every last post you have made is pro conservative and some of it has been downright laughable in its ignorance. You claim that we are attacking Palin but iv not seen anyone really do that. Questioning someones moral hypocrisy is quite different then attacking their character. Most of us feel bad for the daughter, before it even came out that she was pregnant I had told my fiancee I felt bad for the poor girl because this has to screw up her body image.

You cant claim to be moderate or unbiased when every damn word out of your mouth is pro conservative no matter how stupid it is. And you cant claim to when you post articles that in one breath claim climate change isnt real then in the next say it is just not man made. Nor post ones(your newest)that end the article with a link that says
Last but not least - Liberal true believers ... Take the global warming challenge
Click to expand...

Your just prooving your ignorance and bias with each post. Especially when most of us arnt even doing what you say we are. Just because there are liberals out there attacking this poor girl and claiming that Global warming cant be false doesnt mean everyone saying anything liberal is.
 
[quote name='thrustbucket']Stuff like this makes me more and more think that what being "progressive" really means is molding society around human nature, shedding all those old no-fun rules, rather than society trying to keep human nature disciplined. But perhaps that's the essence of Progressives vs. Conservatives in a nutshell?[/quote]

That's because you have lost the concept of freedom. Progressives aren't trying to mold anything, they're trying to give people the best information possible (including all of the scientific data on comprehensive sex education, global warming, and the theory of evolution) and then letting people make their own choices - sure there is a hope that people will make an informed, rational decision, but they are not compelled by law to choose one option over another. Sure, progressives may want to lower the barrier to health care coverage for the poor or "level the playing field" (which - personally speaking - I often disagree with) but when it comes to individual decisions about who to worship or what behaviors are immoral it's not the progressives who are legislating their personal morality - IE lobbying for prayer in schools, taking away a woman's right to make choices about her body, lobbying against government recognition of homosexual relationships, making high-handed decisions about what religions are and aren't recognized by the military, etc

Ironic because conservative Christians are always preaching about free will, how about letting the people practice some?

The vast vast majority of progressives are just as outraged and disgusted by the actions of Republican Senators like Foley and Larry Craig as their conservative counterparts on the other side of the aisle. And it's not like most are applauding the more mundane sexual affairs of Dems, but at least the Dems are not turning public restrooms into makeshift bordellos or using their elected position to have sex with underage teenage pages.
 
[quote name='MSI Magus']Your such a joke thrust. You claim to be moderate but looking through multiple topics every last post you have made is pro conservative and some of it has been downright laughable in its ignorance. You claim that we are attacking Palin but iv not seen anyone really do that. Questioning someones moral hypocrisy is quite different then attacking their character. Most of us feel bad for the daughter, before it even came out that she was pregnant I had told my fiancee I felt bad for the poor girl because this has to screw up her body image. [/quote]

First of all, I don't recall ever claiming to be moderate. Look at the political test threat, I posted my results. I only claimed to not support Republicans. I admit I am conservative, but not the type of conservative being made fun of in this thread.

Second, I am not claiming Palin is really being attacked here. I'm making fun of the "Oh republicans are such a joke, they can't practice what they preach" field day here. That's all. Don't read so much into it.

You cant claim to be moderate or unbiased when every damn word out of your mouth is pro conservative no matter how stupid it is. And you cant claim to when you post articles that in one breath claim climate change isnt real then in the next say it is just not man made. Nor post ones(your newest)that end the article with a link that says
Click to expand...
I don't claim to be moderate or unbiased. Nor do I believe anyone here is. Lots wish they were, but if they actually claim they are, they are lying.

I believe climate change is real, I've never wavered from that. Anyone that's been alive more than year would have to admit Climate Change is real. That's what climate does, it changes. Show me where I've denied climate doesn't change, please. And yes, the jury is still out that humans affect the climate in a catastrophic or even dangerous way.

Your just prooving your ignorance and bias with each post. Especially when most of us arnt even doing what you say we are. Just because there are liberals out there attacking this poor girl and claiming that Global warming cant be false doesnt mean everyone saying anything liberal is.
Click to expand...
Show me where I claimed everyone that is liberal is believing global warming can't be false and is attacking Palin? Where do you get this stuff?

[quote name='camoor']That's because you have lost the concept of freedom. Progressives aren't trying to mold anything, they're trying to give people the best information possible (including all of the scientific data on comprehensive sex education, global warming, and the theory of evolution) and then letting people make their own choices - sure there is a hope that people will make an informed, rational decision, but they are not compelled by law to choose one option over another. Sure, progressives may want to lower the barrier to health care coverage for the poor or "level the playing field" (which - personally speaking - I often disagree with) but when it comes to individual decisions about who to worship or what behaviors are immoral it's not the progressives who are legislating their personal morality - IE lobbying for prayer in schools, taking away a woman's right to make choices about her body, lobbying against government recognition of homosexual relationships, making high-handed decisions about what religions are and aren't recognized by the military, etc[/quote]
That's quite a load there camoor. Progressives are just trying to reveal information? People that call themselves progressives are very much interested in LEGISLATING their agenda. It's laughable that you would argue that all they are interested in is helping people get all the information they need. They are called PROGRESSIVES because they want to PROGRESS society and government from what it is to something else.

Granted, I fully admit the other side does the same thing, as you pointed out. But don't try to pretend that progressives are all about truth, justice, and the American way. It's just another ideology being pushed that you happen to obviously agree with so it's not "bad".


Ironic because conservative Christians are always preaching about free will, how about letting the people practice some?
Click to expand...
If you followed my post history at all, I think you'd know I do.

Telling people what they CAN'T do is not free will. And both sides are guilty of this. (Let's take abortion for example, One side says free will is a choice, the other side says free will is letting someone live, but either way is seen as government interference by the other side, hence the crux)

I don't defend conservatives on any of your accusations. I just try to point out the hypocrisy of pretending progressives are better.

The vast vast majority of progressives are just as outraged and disgusted by the actions of Republican Senators like Foley and Larry Craig as their conservative counterparts on the other side of the aisle. And it's not like most are applauding the more mundane sexual affairs of Dems, but at least the Dems are not turning public restrooms into makeshift bordellos or using their elected position to have sex with underage teenage pages.
Click to expand...

How do you know what the Dems are doing or not doing just because they aren't caught? But like you've said before, it's irrelevant what people do in private. Unless a conservative is caught, of course. This is an issue I actually side with the so-called progressives - what people do in their houses and bedrooms is not the governments, or medias, business.
 
[quote name='thrustbucket']
That's quite a load there camoor. Progressives are just trying to reveal information? People that call themselves progressives are very much interested in LEGISLATING their agenda. [/QUOTE]

But it's a different kind of legislating.

Conservatives want legislation to force their beliefs on others and make certain choices illegal. Overturn Roe v. Wade, ban gay marriage, make abstince only education the only legal option in schools etc. etc.

Progressives want to pass (or maintain) legislation that leaves choices to individuals. Keep Roe vs. Wade so each woman can decide for herself. Allow gay marriage. Leave sex education up to the schools/teachers. etc. etc.

The conservatives legislation takes choices away from people and forces their views on society. The Progressive legislation simply says "hey these things should be up to the individuals involved, not mandated by laws" and protects peoples rights to chose for themselves.

So there's a huge difference in the intrusiveness of legislation here. Conservative legislation oppresses certain people, the progressive legislation merely offends conservatives who don't respect people that go against their values and feel it's the governments duties to make sure everyone lives by their values. And I can't respect anyone who feels that that is the government's duty.

And that's a big reason why I have no respect for the conservative party--at least the modern form that is defined primarly by social conservatism. I can resepct fiscal conservatism, though I disagree with it. But I can't respect people who try to force their beliefs and values on others directly. Things of that nature should be left to individual choice.
 
To get back to attacking Palin on her record and relvant topics....

http://www.time.com/time/printout/0,8816,1837918,00.html

Stein says that as mayor, Palin continued to inject religious beliefs into her policy at times. "She asked the library how she could go about banning books," he says, because some voters thought they had inappropriate language in them. "The librarian was aghast." The librarian, Mary Ellen Baker, couldn't be reached for comment, but news reports from the time show that Palin had threatened to fire her for not giving "full support" to the mayor.
Click to expand...
 
So wait, what's Ms Palin's stance on us sinners?
I hope she says she's against us gays. This way we'll find her scissoring in a bathroom with some black chick. That would be awesome.
 
[quote name='camoor']Abstinence-only education doesn't work.

Scientific data has failed to capture the public imagination - we needed some sizzle to sell this and the law of probabilities saw fit to deliver.

This is going to be a fun election to watch. :bouncy:[/QUOTE]

they need to do what Dave Chapelle did in one of his skit, have the kids watch an elderly couple do it.
 
[quote name='RAMSTORIA']To be fair Stein is her former politcal rival with no verification. (not saying it didnt happen but ya know...)

Anyway, I'm sure that when McCain vetted her he knew that this kind of stuff would come out. Including the pregnancy.[/QUOTE]

Ya that article does seem pretty biased. If even 1 or 2 things are true(and I wouldnt be suprised if they were)its disgusting.....but the article is questionable.
 
[quote name='dmaul1114']
And that's a big reason why I have no respect for the conservative party--at least the modern form that is defined primarly by social conservatism. [/QUOTE]

There is no Conservative party, nor party that's conservative. There is just a party more conservative than the other.

And I am fine with all the issues you bring up, I guess that makes me a progressive then?

Why are issues like protecting borders considered to be conservative issues? Because the progressive line of thinking is we need to give foreigners an open choice to come here? What's progressive, exactly, about keeping the borders porous?

Why is allowing oil company's a "choice" to find and extract oil in our own country considered "conservative"? What's progressive about preventing that "choice"? What's so free about openly celebrating high gas prices? How much choice does that take away from people?

Progressives want to impose strict environmental restrictions in every aspect of life, instead of leaving personal environmental change a "choice", don't they? The old "A tree has more rights than a baby".... eh? ;)

Why is low as possible taxes so people have more "choice" with their money considered a conservative stance? How is it progressive to take more and more, leaving people less "choice"?

Why is the "choice" to have a gun considered a "conservative" issue? What's "progressive" about preventing that choice?

So you made the statement that progressives want to pass and maintain legislation that's all about choice? I don't think that's as true as you let on. The "choices" progressives generally embrace legislating have several caveats, exceptions, and double standards.
 
[quote name='dmaul1114']The conservatives legislation takes choices away from people and forces their views on society. The Progressive legislation simply says "hey these things should be up to the individuals involved, not mandated by laws" and protects peoples rights to chose for themselves.[/quote]

I think this nails it. I'm sure someone could find one or two exceptions to this (like the whole Progressive out-of-control PC speech agenda) but by-and-far this genuinely describes the two sides.

[quote name='thrustbucket']How do you know what the Dems are doing or not doing just because they aren't caught? But like you've said before, it's irrelevant what people do in private. Unless a conservative is caught, of course. This is an issue I actually side with the so-called progressives - what people do in their houses and bedrooms is not the governments, or medias, business.[/quote]

To be sure my observation in this regard is more anecdotal then scientific, but sexual scandals have come in two flavors recently.

If it's a Dem the relevant question is usually "Was she an employee or a pro, is his wife sticking with him, and did they have a kid?"

If it's a Republican the question is "How many boys, how young, and how much meth was he on?"

Surely you have to admit there's a difference between the affairs of consenting adults and wild trysts replete with predation, illegal narcotics and other criminal behavior.

Now you tell me, according to the typical anti-homosexual marriage slippery-slope arguements, shouldn't the more tolerant party be the one with the most shocking scandals?
 
[quote name='thrustbucket']
Why are issues like protecting borders considered to be conservative issues? Because the progressive line of thinking is we need to give foreigners an open choice to come here? What's progressive, exactly, about keeping the borders porous?
[/quote]

I think the progressive stance would be making legal immigration more easy and taking more, having a work permit program etc. Not just ignoring border security.

It's progressive as the country was founded by immigrants and as long as we have plenty of jobs for immigrants and legal workers we should be more liberal in letting people in and fight illegal immigration on that front, along with tighter border security.

Why is allowing oil company's a "choice" to find and extract oil in our own country considered "conservative"? What's progressive about preventing that "choice"? What's so free about openly celebrating high gas prices? How much choice does that take away from people?
Click to expand...

Being progressive isn't only about choice. On the environmental front it's about putting the environment ahead of what's best/easiest for us.

Ideology isn't black and white, and always centered around one issue. Being progressive isn't always about giving people the most amount of choice. The specific stance will vary issue to issue.

Progressives want to impose strict environmental restrictions in every aspect of life, instead of leaving personal environmental change a "choice", don't they? The old "A tree has more rights than a baby".... eh? ;)

Why is low as possible taxes so people have more "choice" with their money considered a conservative stance? How is it progressive to take more and more, leaving people less "choice"?

Why is the "choice" to have a gun considered a "conservative" issue? What's "progressive" about preventing that choice?
Click to expand...

Same as above. And an embryo isn't a baby. ;)

So you made the statement that progressives want to pass and maintain legislation that's all about choice? I don't think that's as true as you let on. The "choices" progressives generally embrace legislating have several caveats, exceptions, and double standards.
Click to expand...

Of course, I was just talking about the particular social issues we had discussed to that point of the thread as we were talking about conservatives legislating their morals.

On other issues the "progressive" stance going to vary.

Ideology isn't cut and dry, unless someone's just a bonehead that can stick to a black and while principle despite what's good for society.

I support a woman's right to choose whether to have an abortion, but that doesn't mean I support free will in everything and think any moron should be able to buy an AK-47.

This is why I really don't like lables like progressive, conservative, liberal etc. Labels in general are useless. It's useless to call someone a hardcore gamer or a casual gamer. If labels don't work in something as banal as gaming, then they especially don't work for something like a person's ideological beliefs.

Any person worth their salt is going to give serious thought to every issue and choose their stance on it independently of their stances on other not really related issues. Not just be a sheepish ideologue who just blindly subscribes to a party/ideology.
 
[quote name='thrustbucket']There is no Conservative party, nor party that's conservative. There is just a party more conservative than the other.

And I am fine with all the issues you bring up, I guess that makes me a progressive then?

Why are issues like protecting borders considered to be conservative issues? Because the progressive line of thinking is we need to give foreigners an open choice to come here? What's progressive, exactly, about keeping the borders porous?

Why is allowing oil company's a "choice" to find and extract oil in our own country considered "conservative"? What's progressive about preventing that "choice"? What's so free about openly celebrating high gas prices? How much choice does that take away from people?

Progressives want to impose strict environmental restrictions in every aspect of life, instead of leaving personal environmental change a "choice", don't they? The old "A tree has more rights than a baby".... eh? ;)

Why is low as possible taxes so people have more "choice" with their money considered a conservative stance? How is it progressive to take more and more, leaving people less "choice"?

Why is the "choice" to have a gun considered a "conservative" issue? What's "progressive" about preventing that choice?

So you made the statement that progressives want to pass and maintain legislation that's all about choice? I don't think that's as true as you let on. The "choices" progressives generally embrace legislating have several caveats, exceptions, and double standards.[/quote]

At some basic level I think we can all agree that a certain base level of environmentalism needs to be regulated.

For example - I'm sure we're all glad there are rules against polluting sources of drinking water. If we were 10 cavemen living around a lake I would still want a law against polluting our closest source of drinking water with human waste or byproduct (dyes, bones, etc)

On the issue of the environment, progressives just take the idea father and think longer-term then most conservatives. Think about your neighboorhood - it does no good for everyone on the block to eliminate excess waste, adopt green-friendly energy use, drive electric cars to work, etc if some asshole nearby decides to light his garbage on fire in the backyard - the place is going to be a smoggy safety and health hazard not to mention smell like crap. It's not about limiting choice or making you do the right thing - it's about keeping the planet healthy so we can all enjoy it for a long time.

I'm not saying progressives have everything right, but I do appreciate their effort to use science and reason to forge a better future while giving people as much choice as possible. You're free to make choices - as long as your actions don't infringe on another's ability to lead a peaceful and productive life in a safe and clean environment.

Guns, well, you know what I think about gun rights :D
 
I am sorry but I don't want a cancer riddled old man and a hockey mom as my President. Good job republicans way to piss off your fanbase.
 
[quote name='lilboo']So wait, what's Ms Palin's stance on us sinners?
I hope she says she's against us gays. This way we'll find her scissoring in a bathroom with some black chick. That would be awesome.[/quote]

With a Super Mario RPG cart, right? ;)
 
She's pretty religious


Speaking before the Pentecostal church, Palin painted the current war in Iraq as a messianic affair in which the United States could act out the will of the Lord.
"Pray for our military men and women who are striving to do what is right. Also, for this country, that our leaders, our national leaders, are sending [U.S. soldiers] out on a task that is from God," she exhorted the congregants. "That's what we have to make sure that we're praying for, that there is a plan and that that plan is God's plan."

Just prior to discussing Iraq, Alaska's governor asked the audience to pray for another matter -- a $30 billion national gas pipeline project that she wanted built in the state. "I think God's will has to be done in unifying people and companies to get that gas line built, so pray for that," she said.


ohh and her Rev Wright moment:

A review of recorded sermons by Ed Kalnins, the senior pastor of Wasilla Assembly of God since 1999, offers a provocative and, for some, eyebrow-raising sketch of Palin's longtime spiritual home.
The church runs a number of ministries providing help to poor neighborhoods, care for children in need, and general community services. But Pastor Kalnins has also preached that critics of President Bush will be banished to hell; questioned whether people who voted for Sen. John Kerry in 2004 would be accepted to heaven; charged that the 9/11 terrorist attacks and war in Iraq were part of a war "contending for your faith;" and said that Jesus "operated from that position of war mode."


let see if anything like this makes even a blip in the news
 
If John McCain becomes the President of the United States then dies in office, 'cause, ya know, he's old and not in the best health, I really would not want Sarah Palin as President of the U.S. If such an event were to actually happen, I would be very concerned and possibly consider relocating to Japan and staying with my well-off relatives. I could probably use my experience to teach English.

*scribbles this down into notebook*
 
[quote name='RAMSTORIA']To be fair Stein is her former politcal rival with no verification. (not saying it didnt happen but ya know...)

Anyway, I'm sure that when McCain vetted her he knew that this kind of stuff would come out. Including the pregnancy.[/QUOTE]

I had thought it was abundantly clear that the vetting process consisted entirely of McCain yelling out "Marco" with Palin being the only to make the correct reply.

McCain or anyone on his campaign who claims to have known about this before hand is more than likely lying through their teeth.
 
[quote name='Msut77']I had thought it was abundantly clear that the vetting process consisted entirely of McCain yelling out "Marco" with Palin being the only to make the correct reply.

McCain or anyone on his campaign who claims to have known about this before hand is more than likely lying through their teeth.[/quote]


Indeed. Considering the beliefs of their audience, had they known about Palin's daughter (Bristol is an interesting name) I sincerely doubt he would have chosen her as his possible Vice President.
 
[quote name='chasemurata']If John McCain becomes the President of the United States then dies in office, 'cause, ya know, he's old and not in the best health, I really would not want Sarah Palin as President of the U.S. If such an event were to actually happen, I would be very concerned and possibly consider relocating to Japan and staying with my well-off relatives. I could probably use my experience to teach English.

*scribbles this down into notebook*[/QUOTE]

Interesting. I had been thinking lately that if it was Palin running for president with someone else, I'd probably vote Repub this time around.

But I won't.
 
I guess it just comes down to different views on the issues. ;) It's a shame real-life politics isn't based on opinions and issues.
 
palin/biden debate is a month away. looks like its set for oct 2. i think that will be the day obama wins the election or mccain resurges to make it tight.
 
[quote name='thrustbucket']So have your fun. It won't be the last time this happens. This is the nature of the relationship between Democrats and Republicans. "Hey, look, you preachy guys screwed up, guess your old archaic BS principles and values don't work after all, eh? Maybe you should embrace such things as human nature and choice ignoring consequence as social progress like we have!"

Stuff like this makes me more and more think that what being "progressive" really means is molding society around human nature, shedding all those old no-fun rules, rather than society trying to keep human nature disciplined. But perhaps that's the essence of Progressives vs. Conservatives in a nutshell?[/QUOTE]

Uh ... aren't you the guy who was all gung-ho about the social acceptance of polygamy?
 
McCain already handed this to Obama by picking Palin.

080902DailyUpdateGraph1_cnwprms.gif


Obama hit 50% for the first time ever, following the announcement of Palin...
 
[quote name='Msut77']I had thought it was abundantly clear that the vetting process consisted entirely of McCain yelling out "Marco" with Palin being the only to make the correct reply.[/quote]

That's a good one :)
 
[quote name='Koggit']McCain already handed this to Obama by picking Palin.

080902DailyUpdateGraph1_cnwprms.gif


Obama hit 50% for the first time ever, following the announcement of Palin...[/QUOTE]

Oh, bollocks. I saw a site that documented all polls over time, national and at the state level.

Can't remember the site.

You could see that Obama was a shade ahead, but well within the margin of error, following the convention.

Polls taken today and yesterday show that divide.

Everyone say thank you Bristol!
 
[quote name='Ikohn4ever']She's pretty religious


Speaking before the Pentecostal church, Palin painted the current war in Iraq as a messianic affair in which the United States could act out the will of the Lord.
"Pray for our military men and women who are striving to do what is right. Also, for this country, that our leaders, our national leaders, are sending [U.S. soldiers] out on a task that is from God," she exhorted the congregants. "That's what we have to make sure that we're praying for, that there is a plan and that that plan is God's plan."

Just prior to discussing Iraq, Alaska's governor asked the audience to pray for another matter -- a $30 billion national gas pipeline project that she wanted built in the state. "I think God's will has to be done in unifying people and companies to get that gas line built, so pray for that," she said.


ohh and her Rev Wright moment:

A review of recorded sermons by Ed Kalnins, the senior pastor of Wasilla Assembly of God since 1999, offers a provocative and, for some, eyebrow-raising sketch of Palin's longtime spiritual home.
The church runs a number of ministries providing help to poor neighborhoods, care for children in need, and general community services. But Pastor Kalnins has also preached that critics of President Bush will be banished to hell; questioned whether people who voted for Sen. John Kerry in 2004 would be accepted to heaven; charged that the 9/11 terrorist attacks and war in Iraq were part of a war "contending for your faith;" and said that Jesus "operated from that position of war mode."


let see if anything like this makes even a blip in the news[/quote]
That's pretty disgusting really. People pray for the silliest things, praying for a gas line to be built has to be one of the funnier one's i've ever read.
 
[quote name='Ikohn4ever']She's pretty religious


Speaking before the Pentecostal church, Palin painted the current war in Iraq as a messianic affair in which the United States could act out the will of the Lord.
"Pray for our military men and women who are striving to do what is right. Also, for this country, that our leaders, our national leaders, are sending [U.S. soldiers] out on a task that is from God," she exhorted the congregants. "That's what we have to make sure that we're praying for, that there is a plan and that that plan is God's plan."

Just prior to discussing Iraq, Alaska's governor asked the audience to pray for another matter -- a $30 billion national gas pipeline project that she wanted built in the state. "I think God's will has to be done in unifying people and companies to get that gas line built, so pray for that," she said.


ohh and her Rev Wright moment:

A review of recorded sermons by Ed Kalnins, the senior pastor of Wasilla Assembly of God since 1999, offers a provocative and, for some, eyebrow-raising sketch of Palin's longtime spiritual home.
The church runs a number of ministries providing help to poor neighborhoods, care for children in need, and general community services. But Pastor Kalnins has also preached that critics of President Bush will be banished to hell; questioned whether people who voted for Sen. John Kerry in 2004 would be accepted to heaven; charged that the 9/11 terrorist attacks and war in Iraq were part of a war "contending for your faith;" and said that Jesus "operated from that position of war mode."


let see if anything like this makes even a blip in the news[/QUOTE]

The more I hear about her the more I think she is a politician whos feet I would not like to spit at. Id like to hit her square on the chin with a big as goober instead.
 
Two words for all the Dems and Media that are attacking Palin.

Kennedy

Clinton

Nuff said, but for those kids here who don't know google Kennedy family and Clinton and see what immoral and unethical things that they have done over the years.

Good to see Lieberman left the Dems and is now speeking out and trying to get moderates to cross over to McCain.
 
[quote name='iluvmywife']Two words for all the Dems and Media that are attacking Palin.

Kennedy

Clinton

Nuff said, but for those kids here who don't know google Kennedy family and Clinton and see what immoral and unethical things that they have done over the years.

Good to see Lieberman left the Dems and is now speeking out and trying to get moderates to cross over to McCain.[/quote]

Did thrustbucket get a new account?
 
[quote name='iluvmywife']Two words for all the Dems and Media that are attacking Palin.

Kennedy

Clinton

Nuff said, but for those kids here who don't know google Kennedy family and Clinton and see what immoral and unethical things that they have done over the years.

Good to see Lieberman left the Dems and is now speeking out and trying to get moderates to cross over to McCain.[/quote]

Good point. It behoves liberals to treat the sex scandal revolving around Palin with the same measured judgement that the conservative political machine treated Bill Clinton's sex scandal.

Problem is, I just don't think liberals can stoop that low. :D
 
[quote name='trq']Uh ... aren't you the guy who was all gung-ho about the social acceptance of polygamy?[/QUOTE]

No. More specifically, it should simply not be illegal and there is no good reason it is as polygamy is defined.

The difference is, I would not be ok with a government sponsored program to "get the word out" that polygamy is ok. I would not be ok with including it in our educational systems to make them feel "more accepted", on the tax payers dollar. I would not be ok with social programs to include polygamists into every aspect of society.

Just remove the hypocritical laws making it illegal, because I'm all about "choice" :)
 
[quote name='evanft']Did thrustbucket get a new account?[/QUOTE]

Clearly you don't really pay attention to my posts. I don't care about people's private morality in their lives. Just the hypocrisy in pointing fingers about it.
 
Mounting a ferocious defense of his embattled running mate, John McCain said he is buying a TV ad arguing that Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin has more experience than the Democratic presidential nominee, Barack Obama.

In an effort to rev up conservatives, a campaign statement issued a list of critical media mentions that it called “smears” of Palin, who speaks in primetime at the convention on Wednesday night.

The campaign announced: “The McCain campaign will launch a television ad directly comparing Gov. Palin’s executive experience as a governor who oversees 24,000 state employees, 14 statewide cabinet agencies and a $ 10 billion budget to Barack Obama’s experience as a one-term junior senator from Illinois.”

The ad is what the campaign calls “a forward-leaning effort to counter the shameless smears that have prevailed during Gov. Palin’s introduction to the American voter.”

Senior adviser Steve Schmidt gave Politico a statement saying the campaign will have no more comment about the vetting process, which was the subject of more critical coverage in Wednesday morning’s papers:

“Gov. Sarah Palin is an exceptional governor with a record of accomplishment that exceeds, by far, the governing accomplishments of Sen. Obama. Her selection came after a six-month long rigorous vetting process where her extraordinary credentials and exceptionalism became clear. This vetting controversy is a faux media scandal designed to destroy the first female Republican nominee for vice president of the United States who has never been a part of the old boys' network that has come to dominate the news establishment in this country. Sen. McCain picked his governing partner after a long and thorough search. Gov. Palin looks forward to addressing the nation and laying out the fundamental choice this election represents for the American people.
Click to expand...

http://news.yahoo.com/s/politico/20080903/pl_politico/13111

McCain's campaign is completely insane.

Actually trying to say Palin has more experience than Obama...really?

6 years of city council in Wasilla (a town of 6,000)
6 years of being mayor in Wasilla (again, a town of 6,000)
almost 2 years of being Governor of Alaska

compared to

7 years Illinois state legislator
3 1/2 years senator

I got to say, I'd much rather have the person with 3 1/2 years Senate experience than the other person with really only 2 years as governor of Alaska.

-----------------

After reading her wiki page (had no idea who she was until she was announced as McCain's running mate), I'm amazed at how much of a complete hypocrite/dirtbag she really is. Was the McCain campaign so desperate to try and catch the Hillary voters (who still won't vote for him) that they turned a blind eye to everything else?
 
[quote name='Sporadic']Actually trying to say Palin has more experience than Obama...really?

6 years of city council in Wasilla (a town of 6,000)
6 years of being mayor in Wasilla (again, a town of 6,000)
almost 2 years of being Governor of Alaska

compared to

7 years Illinois state legislator
3 1/2 years senator
[/quote]

That's almost 14 years as a politician compared to less than 11 as a politician.

Clearly, Palin has more experience than Obama. :lol:
 
Mccain is going to die and I can't see how anyone wants this hockey mom to be commander in chief. Uuuueey Hillary has to be stewing she is not the top dog anymore. She is currently grooming Chelsae to become president and not to make stupid smurks like her so that she will stand a fighting chance.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
bread's done
Back
Top