I do not agree that the views of the author accurately reflect Palin's views. She could believe those things but I would prefer to hear her say it than a left wing blogger claim she thinks it.



Semantics. Your post can be read that way, I guess, but that is irrelevant to my point. Besides, she holds a personal view that abortion in those cases is wrong. It is an understandable position, if you believe that the fetus is entitled to human rights protection. She also has chosen not to deal with abortion as a governor. This is such a stupid argument anyway because it is not like we live in a dictatorship where any one person can make abortion illegal.



Quit being so emotional. You are smarter than this. Short of passing a constitutional ammendment, abortion cannot be banned in this country. Pro-lifers want the controversial Roe v. Wade decision overturned so that states can pass their own laws on the topic. It is clear that all 50 states would never completely ban abortion just like a constitutional ammendment would never pass.

This is fishstickz you're talking to.

Here's an article about how McCain's ads are misleading and false:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/08/30/AR2008083001681.html

From Feminsts For Life:



You're right to say that the FFL website says that it's members have a wide stance on contraception, but the group itself has been all over the map regarding the issue, and dodgy whenever possible.

I rescind my knee jerk reaction.

On your part. I made it very clear I was discussing Palin. Misconstruing it as discussing all pro-lifers would require a great deal of dedication to distorting it or an amazing ineptitude for picking up on qualifiers. Also, your entire point was that I was talking about all pro-lifers.


Please keep your arrogant condenscention to yourself. Being able to empathize is far from being emotional. Honestly Wookie, what are you doing here? It seems you are making a very determined effort to distort or willfully misunderstand what I say. I no longer have the patience to deal with your radical misinterpretations or hold your hand through every argument. You are doing pro-lifers an extreme disservice by acting this way.

In the same breath you say abortion can never be banned in this country but then point out a case where a very small number of people universalized abortion in the first trimester. If it can be universalized one way, it can be universalized the other way. The supreme court has that power.

Aren't we missing the point? She's a VP and she's a MILF. Done. Now get back to the presidential candidates.

Librarian/secretary porn ftw

grandmother. She's a GILF

Skwisgaar Skwigelf would bang her.

O RLY? I thought people were using that acronym because she was a governor.

yeah, she has one (possibly two) grandchildren

Total gilf then.



Count me in too.

Why? The thread is about her, not McCain. What would be the point of not discussing her? Especially since she's just a footstep away from the most powerful position in the world. Given McCain's age, she SHOULD be discussed.

I didn't miscontrue it as discussing all pro-lifers but that is the position of most pro-lifers. Besides, you said supporting so and so, which Palin does, can be construed different ways with out any particular ineptitude. That's why I said semantics. You took the comment way too personal.



Quit being so emo. Pro-lifers are against abortion. Specific views may differ among individuals but, generally, not wanting a "love child" to be aborted is not so different than not wanting a "hate child" to be aborted. And most of us with the exception of Obama can agree that no child should be aborted outside of the womb.



So you believe that the Supreme Court can universalize banning abortion in the entire country? That's asinine. They could theoretically uphold a law that bans all abortion in the country after they dismiss their previous ruling but that means the congress and president would have to sign such a law. In which hypothetical case, all three branches of government would be in agreement. Far from the scenario you allude to above.

Sorry my posts always seem so short and unargued. My posts usually entail a temporary "escape" from my son and thus I need to get right to the point.



That editorial is misleading and so is Obama. The people he claims to reduce taxes for have already had their taxes reduced. We're actually getting even more into the territory where they will get even more money back than what they paid in than they do now. He'll raise taxes on others to "pay" for it but that will backfire, like it always does, and then taxes will go up on everybody again. Such a rediculous argument because George Bush already increased the tax burden on the rich. Obama's plan is just more of the same and not the change the American people want.

edit -

And I want to add that this is so deceptive:

"The country can't afford the tax cuts either man is promising, although Mr. McCain's approach is by far the more costly. We don't expect either side to admit that. But neither side should get to outright lie about its opponent's positions, either."

Please, at least try to post non-partisan, or at least relatively mainstream, sources for your arguments. I mean, I don't try to quote Limbaugh to support my arguments.

I'm delighted to know that you spend so much time thinking about me.

lulz.

From a 2006 Gubernatorial Candidate Questionnaire



lulz.

Wookie, I love how you are so subtly inflammatory!

Anyway, on the contraception issue, I am confused as to how that would turn women into sex receptacles. Doesn't it put them on a somewhat level playing field in terms of being able to be total sluts like me and have no material consequences?

That's all a male lie to turn women into sex receptacles while convincing them that they actually are experiencing sexual equality.

...obviously.

Yeah, I tell girls this lie about how much I love gender equality and stuff so that they will sleep with me. I feel all masculine, turning women into disposable objects like that.

But I still let them handcuff me to the bed and hit me with a riding crop.

Hahaha, wow. Unlike Obama's "57 states" this is actually a good reason not to vote for the ticket. It means our future VP doesn't know basic facts about our country. Not good.

Hah.

I think that's taking it a bit far, but it's definitely funny.

Sarah Palin's 17 year old daughter is pregnant. Damn, how'd you like to be the man who knocked up the Vice Presidential candidate's daughter?

I think one of the funniest Obama comments was when he referred to the ten thousand people killed by the Greensburg tornado. I have absolutely no idea what he was thinking about.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/6638207.stm



I wonder if she was talking about the concept that the founding fathers would have accepted the addtion of the religious statement. Still it is funny.

And an interesting footnote to all of the grandmother talk here. It looks like Sarah Palin is happy with the fact that her daughter is about to be punished with a baby. Oh, and in about 4 months she will have both GILFs covered. Well, actually, by then she will have one GILF and one FGILF.

Obama's platform includes legalization of killing birthed children?

So Palin's 17 year old is pregnant. Nice.

Ooo its like having Britney Spear's mom as a VP candidate.

O.o

I don't think so. She's running for VP and she doesn't (or didn't) know that:

1. "Under God" wasn't added until the 1950s
2. The Founding Fathers had nothing to do with the Pledge of Allegiance because, oh, it was written in 1892.
3. The Founding Fathers opposed religion in government.

I'm a college student studying software engineering. Most of the research I do when voting occurs within the few days before the actual election. While educated, there definitely are gaps in my knowledge of government and policy. Somehow, I know these things. This woman is making a career out of these things, but she manages to say something that stupid.

I'm emo because I called you out on your distortions and I really don't feel like putting up with your arguments that seem to completely disregard everything said before? Yeah, that makes sense. You also accuse me of taking the argument personally, but you're the one making nonsense insults. How does that work? Have you just run out of arguments and that's what you have left along with repeating statements where there is no point of contention and it has been pointed out that's not the issue at all? How many times is someone going to have to repeat "We're not talking about all pro-lifers" before that actually gets through to you?

A federal law beforehand is not required. South Dakota is trying to get a blanket no abortion law passed for the very reason of getting it appealed up to the Supreme Court and then hoping the Supreme Court rules that it is in fact murder to abort a fetus. If the Supreme Court were to rule this way(which is not out of the realm of possibilities, especially if the Court is stacked), then it will make prosecution of abortion under the federal system, if not the state systems, a reality. As the Supreme Court is now, they probably wouldn't go as far as this, but if the Court became stacked with conservative judges, you can bet they'd seriously think about using the Fourteenth Amendment as a way to prevent the government from sanctioning abortion. In fact there is a very strong pro-life argument right there. It could definitely be argued that abortion is the taking of life without due process and that just because government isn't actively doing it themselves they are complicit in the act by allowing it.

So, if South Dakota gets it's law passed and the challenge leads to the Supreme Court overruling its previous decision and upholds the South Dakota law as constitutional then all abortion could be made illegal?



Supreme Court rulings don't work that way.



His platform doesn't, just his Illinois voting record. He actually voted against, rather than just present, a law which would have prevented the killing of a baby that survived a botched abortion. He specifically said that bringing in another doctor to assess the situation undermined the original intent of the procedure.

You do realize you just showed everyone that does case studies on the Supreme Court(like myself) just how little you know about this, right? Do you really not understand how much impact a Supreme Court decision has and how it can affect the states? Try Mapp vs Ohio for instance. Using the 14th amendment they imposed the exclusionary rule of evidence on ALL of the states. It is not a rare usage of the 14th amendment either. The 14th amendment has been interpreted as meaning that not only does the federal government have to abid by the Bill of Rights and amendments, but so do the states. If the Supreme Court rules that abortion is the taking of life without legal due process(and is more than just a state's rights issue, in which case it obviously wouldn't apply to all states), that will outlaw abortion in every single state(not counting exceptions they may have like when the mother's life is in danger). This is exactly the way the Supreme Court works and you're embarrassing yourself by acting like you know what you're talking about when in reality you're just shooting from the hip.

hmm... well regardless of Palins views on contraceptives, apparently her daughter in NOT a fan.

TROOPERGATESHOCK [/SIZE]

Whatever.

McCain Stalin 08! Woo.

(You know Barrack picked Biden just so his posters could say Obama Biden.)

haha


"And the research backing this conclusion is where?"

I find all of the vicious talk in the media about Palin's daughter's situation funny. There are people out there saying "this proves abstinence only education doesn't work". Well, let's see. Imagine she was educated that the use of condoms and other birth control devices significantly reduce the risk of pregnancy then still gets pregnant. Would that prove that education doesn't work? I'm pretty sure that if she was educated in abstinence only she realizes now that that method probably could have ensured she did not become pregnant.



I admit that I shouldn't have phrased it the way I did or, rather, that I could have changed the wording a bit to make my view more clear. The Supreme Court typically does not work that way on extremely controversial issues. Generally, you're just plain lucky if you even get an audience but in this case there is no need to go beyond throwing out their Roe v. Wade decision. It would be highly unlikely that the court define unborn children as protected under the 14h Amendment but your are absolutely right that doing such a thing would, defacto, make abortion illegal. I don't believe a modern conservative court would do such a thing because of the general understanding conservatives have that justices should not legislate from the bench.

I think you make a huge mistake when you believe that a conservatively stacked court would do the same type of things that a similarly liberally stacked court would do. Virtually every dissent or decision written by a conservative justice talks about the limits placed on the court and the rights of the people and legislators. This is what I don't understand about liberals actually wanting liberal justices. It may seem all good now but, God forbid, if the left owned all three branches of government you will start to see more rights than ever stripped away. That is something that simply won't happen with a conservative court.

How can this prove abstinence-only doesn't work when, to become pregnant, she has to do exactly what abstinence-only tells her not to?