She pisses me off saying "we made a choice about having the baby" in both her case and her daughter, however the stance she takes on abortion would not allow a choice.....
She did make a choice. Under our current law, she could have had an abortion. I don't think it's a secret that she would prefer it if there was no choice, but she is correct in saying that she had the option either way.
She pisses me off saying "we made a choice about having the baby" in both her case and her daughter, however the stance she takes on abortion would not allow a choice.....
She did make a choice. Under our current law, she could have had an abortion. I don't think it's a secret that she would prefer it if there was no choice, but she is correct in saying that she had the option either way.
Obviously, you are choosing on purpose to not see the point...
Obviously, you are choosing on purpose to not see the point...
I understand your point. Your saying that in her mind, there was no choice. However, you shouldn't be so quick to jump on a statement that is technically true. Any competent doctor would have explained her options. Therefore, she would have made a choice. There's enough to criticize her on without reaching this deep.
I understand your point. Your saying that in her mind, there was no choice. However, you shouldn't be so quick to jump on a statement that is technically true. Any competent doctor would have explained her options. Therefore, she would have made a choice. There's enough to criticize her on without reaching this deep.
So she's a hypocrite? She's proud to profess that she made a choice to have the baby, yet wishes to prevent others from having that option?
So she's a hypocrite? She's proud to profess that she made a choice to have the baby, yet wishes to prevent others from having that option?
I don't think it's hypocrisy. I'm sure she's proud of all people who choose to keep their baby, and is not proud of those who choose to terminate a pregnancy. She makes no bones about that. She's not saying she's proud of being able to have a choice. She's saying that she's proud of the choice she made. Big difference.
It makes more sense if you criticize her position on abortion. Picking apart a statement that's entirely consistent with her position is just a waste of time.
91% of downs syndrome babies are aborted. That means a whole lot of conservatives are aborting their babies. Palin has actually put her money where her mouth is. While I don't agree with her position on abortion, I'm mature enough to respect her decision to live a life consistent with her belief - even if that means she's going to have a harder life. It shows that, when it comes to her convictions, she at least has character.
Look at Al Gore. Isn't his carbon footprint just shy of the entire nation of Botswana?
For the life of me, I can't understand why Obama is not 15 points ahead. Look at Bush, look at the economy... If I were Obama, I'd start to rethink my strategy. It should be his election to win or lose.
I never thought that I would say this, but I honestly wonder if Hillary would be doing better.
For the life of me, I can't understand why Obama is not 15 points ahead.
Because too many fucktards base their vote on the abortion issue.
Also, the popular vote might be even, but the Electoral College is not. It will be interesting to see whether the Republicans about-face and complain that Obama "stole" the election when he wins by the Electoral College.
For the life of me, I can't understand why Obama is not 15 points ahead. Look at Bush, look at the economy... If I were Obama, I'd start to rethink my strategy. It should be his election to win or lose.
I never thought that I would say this, but I honestly wonder if Hillary would be doing better.
We'll have to see about these polls,
all the other polls still have Obama 6-8 points up (gallup daily and the like). Check out over at www.electoral-vote.com today's polling gave "We have three new presidential polls today, two of them surprising. In North Dakota, Barack Obama has a small lead over John Mcain, 43% to 40%. This is within the margin of error, so it is a statistical tie. This is a state George Bush won by 27 points in 2004 and 28 points in 2000. It is not supposed to be a tie. It is supposed to be a rout for any Republican. It bears watching. If Obama actually campaigns here at the very least it will force McCain devote some money and energy to a state he should win on autopilot."
The fact that North Dakota looks like it's in play at 43-40 Obama when Bush won it by 27 points!
Not to mention yesterday's report of Iowa being at 55% for Obama when Bush won that state as well...
Don't forget Ohio, polling in favor of Obama by a 2-point margin with its 20 electoral votes. It was a Bush state the last two elections, and no one has ever won the White House without winning Ohio.
Don't forget Ohio, polling in favor of Obama by a 2-point margin with its 20 electoral votes. It was a Bush state the last two elections, and no one has ever won the White House without winning Ohio.
Yea, that's within statistical error so I don't care much for it in terms of the wow factor "Look at how bad McCain is doing in some states that Bush did well in last time" ;-p
and no one has ever won the White House without winning Ohio.
WRONG! At least three presidents have won without carrying Ohio. Those three are George Washington, John Adams, and Thomas Jefferson. However, you used the phrase "won the White House." I think the White House was built later, so maybe the answer is technically two. I think John Adams and Jefferson lived in it, but Washington did not.
and no one has ever won the White House without winning Ohio.
WRONG! At least three presidents have won without carrying Ohio. Those three are George Washington, John Adams, and Thomas Jefferson. However, you used the phrase "won the White House." I think the White House was built later, so maybe the answer is technically two. I think John Adams and Jefferson lived in it, but Washington did not.
Also, I'm pretty sure it is republicans who have never won the White house without Ohio. (at least from what I hear)
and no one has ever won the White House without winning Ohio.
WRONG! At least three presidents have won without carrying Ohio. Those three are George Washington, John Adams, and Thomas Jefferson. However, you used the phrase "won the White House." I think the White House was built later, so maybe the answer is technically two. I think John Adams and Jefferson lived in it, but Washington did not.
I think that Washington, Adams, and Jefferson were all elected before Ohio was a state.
and no one has ever won the White House without winning Ohio.
WRONG! At least three presidents have won without carrying Ohio. Those three are George Washington, John Adams, and Thomas Jefferson. However, you used the phrase "won the White House." I think the White House was built later, so maybe the answer is technically two. I think John Adams and Jefferson lived in it, but Washington did not.
I was wrong in any case. After researching, the correct statement is that Ohio has chosen the correct president in the past 11 elections. My previous information came from in-meeting truisms by the heads of both local political parties and is clearly, clearly incorrect.
Asked about the death penalty, in extreme cases such as the murder of a child, Palin said, “My goodness, hang ‘em up, yeah.†[Anchorage Daily News (Alaska), 8/18/06]
Seems like the moose murderer is also enthusiastic about killing people.
I'm no fan of the death penalty, but even I know an idiom when I hear one. Alaska has no death penalty. Alaskan politics are different than national politics. I'm actually not surprised she said something like that for an Alaskan audience.
The context of that statement was her saying that if the legislature passed a death penalty bill, she would sign it. One has to give her credit for deferring completely to the legislature. After all, they are the ones who should be making laws.
All politicians say things that come across the wrong way. Remember when Obama made a gaffe in reference to Jerusalem?
Too bad Joe's litmus test would have excluded George Washington as a president. Fox hunting is one of the most cruel forms of hunting out there. Even back then, it was purely for entertainment. At least Palin wants to protect some moose and caribou. See how absurd this gets? Ahh... the days when politics was about issues that matter...
Too bad Joe's litmus test would have excluded George Washington as a president.Fox huntingis one of the most cruel forms of hunting out there. Even back then, it was purely for entertainment. At least Palin wants to protect some moose and caribou. See how absurd this gets? Ahh... the days when politics was about issues that matter...
I honestly do not care what hobbies any candidate has.... I care about their politics, their experience, their ability to handle crises, their judgment, and their lack of corruption, and their ability to deliver well thought out, intelligent solutions over glib soundbites. That being said, Palin appears to be so untested in almost all of these categories, and the information available on her does not appeal to me, that I would be fearful of her in any position of major federal authority. That being said, I would be almost as scared had McCain picked Romney or the new, conservative Lieberman. I just think it is funny that the Republicans find what little they have seen of Palin to be so appealing based solely on her personal life, her faith, and her physical appearance. She is Neo-Con barbie. Only the Republicans could place a woman in a major position and have it come off as sexist. Seriously, do they think that Hillary supporters are just looking for another pair of tits to vote for? This is just disgusting, pathetic, and makes the idea of a McCain presidency all the more frightening for its lack of judgment, impulsiveness (as he only met her once before picking her according to many reports), and the choice of style over substance.
Too bad Joe's litmus test would have excluded George Washington as a president.Fox huntingis one of the most cruel forms of hunting out there. Even back then, it was purely for entertainment. At least Palin wants to protect some moose and caribou. See how absurd this gets? Ahh... the days when politics was about issues that matter...
Washington also participated in another cruel institution of the time that would exclude him from being President now . . .
So, yeah, I get your point. Palin is just the same as Washington. I think I remember some sort of internet description of your Washington/Palin comparison - Oh yeah - "Epic Fail".
I just think it is funny that the Republicans find what little they have seen of Palin to be so appealing based solely on her personal life, her faith, and her physical appearance.
I think it's funny that a certain "moderate" is so fanatically pro-Palin.
You're missing my point. My point is that this entire issue is a waste of time. If Obama advocated controlling a rampant wolf population by aerial hunting, you'd still vote for him. I can understand hunting (if you're a vegetarian) and NRA support being an issue, but to blame a hunter for supporting a form of herd management... sheesh. It just seems so desperate.
I think it's funny that a certain "moderate" is so fanatically pro-Palin.
I'm not pro Palin. She doesn't do anything for me whatsoever. Right now, I'm 75% certain that my vote is going for Obama. (I want to see the debates.) I'm just pointing out partisanship taken to the extreme. As a moderate, that annoys me more than anything else. There is so much to attack this woman on that has merit, it drives me nuts when people get lost in a fog.
YourYou're missing my point. My point is that this entire issue is a waste of time. If Obama advocated controlling a rampant wolf population by aerial hunting, you'd still vote for him. So move on...
Wrong. If Obama was involved with this, I would certainly not support him.
I'm not pro Palin.
You could have fooled me.
I'm just pointing out partisanship taken to the extreme. As a moderate, that annoys me more than anything else.
As stated before, we are free to be partisan here. If it annoys you, there's a whole internet to choose from. No one is forcing you to be here. Perhaps there's an alt.moderates-who-love-Palin board that would make you happier.
Wrong. If Obama was involved with this, I would certainly not support him.
Let me get this straight. If you agree with Obama on EVERY issue (foreign policy, domestic policy, economic policy, reproductive rights, etc.) except for his support of herd management by hunting from an aircraft, you would NOT vote for him???!!!!
Wow. Just wow. I could understand if it was an issue like FISA, but this just blows my mind.
No offense, Joe, but you've just officially jumped the credibility shark.
Comments
It makes more sense if you criticize her position on abortion. Picking apart a statement that's entirely consistent with her position is just a waste of time.
91% of downs syndrome babies are aborted. That means a whole lot of conservatives are aborting their babies. Palin has actually put her money where her mouth is. While I don't agree with her position on abortion, I'm mature enough to respect her decision to live a life consistent with her belief - even if that means she's going to have a harder life. It shows that, when it comes to her convictions, she at least has character.
Look at Al Gore. Isn't his carbon footprint just shy of the entire nation of Botswana?
For the life of me, I can't understand why Obama is not 15 points ahead. Look at Bush, look at the economy... If I were Obama, I'd start to rethink my strategy. It should be his election to win or lose.
I never thought that I would say this, but I honestly wonder if Hillary would be doing better.
Also, the popular vote might be even, but the Electoral College is not. It will be interesting to see whether the Republicans about-face and complain that Obama "stole" the election when he wins by the Electoral College.
all the other polls still have Obama 6-8 points up (gallup daily and the like). Check out over at www.electoral-vote.com
today's polling gave "We have three new presidential polls today, two of them surprising. In North Dakota, Barack Obama has a small lead over John Mcain, 43% to 40%. This is within the margin of error, so it is a statistical tie. This is a state George Bush won by 27 points in 2004 and 28 points in 2000. It is not supposed to be a tie. It is supposed to be a rout for any Republican. It bears watching. If Obama actually campaigns here at the very least it will force McCain devote some money and energy to a state he should win on autopilot."
The fact that North Dakota looks like it's in play at 43-40 Obama when Bush won it by 27 points!
Not to mention yesterday's report of Iowa being at 55% for Obama when Bush won that state as well...
Seems like the moose murderer is also enthusiastic about killing people.
I'm no fan of the death penalty, but even I know an idiom when I hear one. Alaska has no death penalty. Alaskan politics are different than national politics. I'm actually not surprised she said something like that for an Alaskan audience.
The context of that statement was her saying that if the legislature passed a death penalty bill, she would sign it. One has to give her credit for deferring completely to the legislature. After all, they are the ones who should be making laws.
All politicians say things that come across the wrong way. Remember when Obama made a gaffe in reference to Jerusalem?
So, yeah, I get your point. Palin is just the same as Washington. I think I remember some sort of internet description of your Washington/Palin comparison - Oh yeah - "Epic Fail". I think it's funny that a certain "moderate" is so fanatically pro-Palin.
Wow. Just wow. I could understand if it was an issue like FISA, but this just blows my mind.
No offense, Joe, but you've just officially jumped the credibility shark.