Massassi Forums Logo

This is the static archive of the Massassi Forums. The forums are closed indefinitely. Thanks for all the memories!

You can also download Super Old Archived Message Boards from when Massassi first started.

"View" counts are as of the day the forums were archived, and will no longer increase.

ForumsDiscussion Forum → Sarah Palin (R)
1234567891011
Sarah Palin (R)
2008-09-03, 9:41 PM #241
Actually I really enjoyed her speech. I defenitely like her more then McCain, so if he kicks the bucket, I'd have no problem with her being the first female president, muchless the one to take the remainder of his term.

You could say I was pleasantly suprised.

The whole "more concerned if they were read their rights" bit I found very amusing. I'm suprised she said that publicially, but I do agree with her there.
"They're everywhere, the little harlots."
-Martyn
2008-09-03, 9:42 PM #242
Originally posted by Michael MacFarlane:
Well, yeah. That's why I propose teaching as many effective methods as possible rather than just one. (The latter is what abstinence-only education is, and that's what Palin supports.)



Sure. But teaching them only one method (abstinence) means that those who won't use it are left without any protection at all. Give those who won't abstain anyway the means to protect themselves from unwanted pregnancy, and yes, the result of failure will be the same, but it'll happen less often.



Teenagers who go through abstinence-only education may be dimly aware of condoms and other birth control methods, but it's clear that there's nothing instinctive about being able to use them properly -- a Google search will turn up dozens of articles about teens failing to operate a simple condom correctly.



Few things are. "Safe sex" is so called because it's safer than irresponsible sex, not because it's safe in an absolute sense. And I'd say that consensual sex that doesn't result in any physical consequences is pretty unlikely to do any lasting emotional or mental harm to teenagers either.



That's fine. I'm more or less in agreement. But -- and I mean absolutely no offense here -- it's really not your views on sex education I'm worried about. You're not running for Vice President; Palin is. If you don't intend to defend her to the hilt on this, that's fine too.


Please, if you want to respond, keep it concise. Not that I don't want to discuss this but this far more sucessful thread about Palin (vs. the Biden one) should not be bogged down by such minutia.

These children have virtually unlimited access to "safe sex" education. Even Palin chose not to pursue an abstinence only policy in her state. Her daughter undoubtedly already knew "safe sex" techniques were almost nearly as effective as the abstinence method her mother believed in. But none of them are 100% and either way she is in the situation she is in now.

Man, I respect how you came back at me with a non-personal position. The main reason I jab at people here is the personal way they position themselves. I generally agree with Kieran but he seemed to be whining about Palin so I poked him some more. He's a good guy and I have a lot of respect for him.

Palin is not going to jumped into the presidency and erase all sex-ed. If anything, she would want to encourage kids to wait until they are ready. The physical, mental, and emotional impact of getting thrust into adult matters during the fragile teen years adds a burden that forever complicates lives. I think Palin has the personal experience and knowledge to deal with those issues.
"I would rather claim to be an uneducated man than be mal-educated and claim to be otherwise." - Wookie 03:16

2008-09-03, 9:44 PM #243
Originally posted by Onimusha.:
The whole "more concerned if they were read their rights" bit I found very amusing. I'm suprised she said that publicially, but I do agree with her there.


You agree that "suspected terrorists" shouldn't have rights?
2008-09-03, 9:45 PM #244
Quote:
You put waaaay too much faith in humanity. You'll feel better if you just accept the fact that people suck balls.

Also you seem to be taking all this on a bit of a personal level.

I'm shocked, not offended. In order to take it personally I'd have to think it actually affects me in a way I care about. Then again, it's strange that I'm shocked. I've been shown over and over that people will bare their claws, twist information, and do whatever it takes to gouge out the eyes of their opponents, yet I keep thinking it might be different. I'm like a rat with only half a brain that keeps pressing the paddle and expecting cheese to fall out the sky but instead getting a jolt up my butt every time.
Democracy: rule by the stupid
2008-09-03, 9:52 PM #245
Originally posted by Vincent Valentine:
You agree that "suspected terrorists" shouldn't have rights?


Hmmm, that's not what was said.
"I would rather claim to be an uneducated man than be mal-educated and claim to be otherwise." - Wookie 03:16

2008-09-03, 9:54 PM #246
Quote:
You agree that "suspected terrorists" shouldn't have rights?


What wookie said. Your refering to something out of context.
"They're everywhere, the little harlots."
-Martyn
2008-09-03, 9:59 PM #247
Quote:
Al Qaeda terrorists still plot to inflict catastrophic harm on America ... he's worried that someone won't read them their rights?


Explain it to me then.
2008-09-03, 10:00 PM #248
If you wanted to get pointlessly picky, there is a serious debate in the legal community about whither it should be mandatory to read rights at all to anybody.


Fun fact of the night: Even though he won the Supreme Court case, Miranda was still convicted on retrial. He ended up spending about a total of 11 years in prison than was stabbed to death in a bar fight when he was paroled. When the suspect was arrested and read his rights, he kept his mouth shut and the police had to release him because they didn't have enough on him. He ran to Mexico afterwards and never paid for killing Miranda. KARMA!

(posted that purely because it makes me laugh)
Democracy: rule by the stupid
2008-09-03, 10:02 PM #249
Uh people who are OBVIOUSLY terrorists? You know, long beards, middle eastern, always cutting some innocent white guys head off and then bragging in arab about it? Who do you think Al Qaeda is?!? Last time I checked, if you have a US citizenship, they want you dead. It doesn't get much more black and white then that.


Not american civilian tinhatters that the government snagged because they said "kill" and "president" in one sentance too many times per phonecall.

Although I'm of the mindset that if the government wants you bad enough, your "rights" dont mean ****.


While we're on this road, I'm also of the mindset that if your not an american civilian, you can't claim american rights if captured during war. (IE several residents of the guantanamo bay area) As a POW you can adhere to the rules of the geneva convention for sure, but not our own personal american rights.
"They're everywhere, the little harlots."
-Martyn
2008-09-03, 10:02 PM #250
I'm assuming she's referring prisoners in Guantanamo not getting due process. That's something that's been mentioned several times today.
2008-09-03, 10:10 PM #251
Well yeah, I'd agree that since the war is over they should be tried, but I don't believe they deserve to be tried in America. Give them back to Iraq or send them to the Useless Nations.
"They're everywhere, the little harlots."
-Martyn
2008-09-03, 10:10 PM #252
Originally posted by Onimusha.:
Uh people who are OBVIOUSLY terrorists? You know, long beards, middle eastern, always cutting some innocent white guys head off and then bragging in arab about it? Who do you think Al Qaeda is?!? Last time I checked, if you have a US citizenship, they want you dead. It doesn't get much more black and white then that.


Not american civilian tinhatters that the government snagged because they said "kill" and "president" in one sentance too many times per phonecall.

Although I'm of the mindset that if the government wants you bad enough, your "rights" dont mean ****.


While we're on this road, I'm also of the mindset that if your not an american civilian, you can't claim american rights if captured during war. (IE several residents of the guantanamo bay area) As a POW you can adhere to the rules of the geneva convention for sure, but not our own personal american rights.


Racist!

I hope you get your head cut off. (to paraphrase a line from the cinematic masterpiece, Highlander)
"I would rather claim to be an uneducated man than be mal-educated and claim to be otherwise." - Wookie 03:16

2008-09-03, 10:11 PM #253
I also love how this thread far surpassed any interest in the Demobrat nominee. What was his name? Joe somethingorrather....
"I would rather claim to be an uneducated man than be mal-educated and claim to be otherwise." - Wookie 03:16

2008-09-03, 10:20 PM #254
Everyone loves milfs.
Democracy: rule by the stupid
2008-09-03, 10:21 PM #255
really if you take the constitution at face value: All men are created equal.

that doesnt mean "american" men(read people) it means everyone on the planet. (and up in space if they happen to be an astronaut) the rights are inherent in being human.

so yeah, they arent really your "personal american rights," they're everyones.
My girlfriend paid a lot of money for that tv; I want to watch ALL OF IT. - JM
2008-09-03, 10:23 PM #256
Quote:
really if you take the constitution at face value: All men are created equal.

that doesnt mean "american" men(read people) it means everyone on the planet. (and up in space if they happen to be an astronaut) the rights are inherent in being human.

so yeah, they arent really your "personal american rights," they're everyones.


When you put it that way you have a good point. I guess at that point I would base it off of how they would treat us if we claimed their rights in their country as POWs (given that Iraq was terrorist controlled). I know that puts the whole "better man" scenario into play, but unfortunately its not a perfect world. (no pun intended.. I think).
"They're everywhere, the little harlots."
-Martyn
2008-09-03, 10:24 PM #257
Originally posted by Onimusha.:
(given that Iraq was terrorist controlled).


!
2008-09-03, 10:31 PM #258
Originally posted by Onimusha.:
(given that Iraq was terrorist controlled)

...

You're joking right...
Code to the left of him, code to the right of him, code in front of him compil'd and thundered. Programm'd at with shot and $SHELL. Boldly he typed and well. Into the jaws of C. Into the mouth of PERL. Debug'd the 0x258.
2008-09-03, 10:44 PM #259
It was a good speech. In my opinion, the parts that were personalized about her biography were better than the more generic attacks on Democrats. I thought the subtle allusion to her daughter's pregnancy was gracefully and tastefully done too.

However, it's disappointing that the McCain campaign is having her lie so blatantly about her record in Alaska.

What Palin said:
I suspended the state fuel tax, and championed reform to end the abuses of earmark spending by Congress.

The Truth:
As mayor of Wasila, she hired a lobbying firm to secure a huge amount of federal funding in the form of earmarks for Wasilla: $27 million over the course of 4 years for a town of less than 7,000 people.(Source) and (Source)

What Palin said:
I told the Congress “thanks, but no thanks,” for that Bridge to Nowhere. If our state wanted a bridge, we’d build it ourselves.

The Truth:
Palin ran on a "build-the-bridge" platform in the 2006 gubernatorial race and was an advocate of the earmark that secured the federal funding. Even after the bridge became a national joke and a symbol of wasteful spending, she still defended it. And after the project was canceled? Alaska kept all of the federal money. Doesn't sound like "No Thanks!" at all. (Source)

Yes, she has executive experience as mayor of Wasilla. But what's her record there? Even after securing all of that earmark money, she still managed to leave the town with millions of dollars in debt (partially due to a bungled land deal that cost the taxpayers an extra $1.7 million).

I thought you guys at least pretended to be fiscal conservatives. What gives? :confused:

Below: a comparison on Wasilla's earmark funding under Palin versus the nation average. Also, a picture of Palin campaigning for the "Bridge to Nowhere" which she claimed in her RNC speech to oppose
Attachment: 19951/per_capita_earmarks.jpg (42,136 bytes)
Attachment: 19952/liar.jpg (9,424 bytes)
2008-09-03, 10:52 PM #260
Quote:
You're joking right...


i'm saying, IF Iraq was controlled by terrorists. As in their government was run by Al Qaeda. Whats the issue?

Maybe I should have used Iran for a better example.
"They're everywhere, the little harlots."
-Martyn
2008-09-03, 10:57 PM #261
Originally posted by Wookie06:
dodge


I don't know why you ever expected this to be about what you thought, considering this discussion began with me pointing out Bristol as an example of the kind of problems Palin's proposed sex education scheme would cause more of. For my part, I took your response as an indication that you meant to defend Palin's position. You may not be aware of this, but if you don't particularly disagree, you don't have to argue just because I'm criticizing a Republican.

The bit about Palin being unable to singlehandedly mandate abstinence-only education for the country is off the point. We already have too many of those programs and too many federal dollars going to promote them, and we need fewer of the kind of people in government who think they're a good idea, not more.
If you think the waiters are rude, you should see the manager.
2008-09-04, 6:17 AM #262
Originally posted by Michael MacFarlane:
I don't know why you ever expected this to be about what you thought, considering this discussion began with me pointing out Bristol as an example of the kind of problems Palin's proposed sex education scheme would cause more of. For my part, I took your response as an indication that you meant to defend Palin's position. You may not be aware of this, but if you don't particularly disagree, you don't have to argue just because I'm criticizing a Republican.


Wow. I didn't dodge, I was being polite and I do significantly disagree with you on this topic. I think that no matter what method of sex-ed is taught someone will be able to find an example of where it might not have worked. In the case of Bristol we have no idea, nor should we, what any of the circumstances of her pregnancy are. We can draw no conclusions nor illustrate any points.
"I would rather claim to be an uneducated man than be mal-educated and claim to be otherwise." - Wookie 03:16

2008-09-04, 6:18 AM #263
Quote:
really if you take the constitution at face value: All men are created equal.


That's the Declaration of Independence, which is not in any way a legal document. Also, you can't say we are 'created' equal unless you also say there is a diety creating us.
2008-09-04, 6:20 AM #264
Also, Ron Paul's answer to the earmark issue is pertinent here : That's not the government's money, it's the people's money. Any amount that gets kicked back to the people is a good thing. It's their job - and the amount she got just means that she's good at her job.
2008-09-04, 9:04 AM #265
Originally posted by JM:
Also, you can't say we are 'created' equal unless you also say there is a diety creating us.

What? Conception isn't creation?

Edit: Also I mean the colloquial definition of creation, obviously no matter or energy is created.
Bassoon, n. A brazen instrument into which a fool blows out his brains.
2008-09-04, 10:01 AM #266
Originally posted by Wookie06:
I think that no matter what method of sex-ed is taught someone will be able to find an example of where it might not have worked.


So... what? Everyone will agree that no form of sex-ed prevents all teen pregnancies. However, some prevent more than others.

Quote:
In the case of Bristol we have no idea, nor should we, what any of the circumstances of her pregnancy are. We can draw no conclusions nor illustrate any points.


She's pretty clearly illustrative of at least one thing: Teenagers are going to have sex. Even good Christian teenagers with good Christian parents who believe wholeheartedly in abstinence are going to have sex. That shouldn't even need illustrating, but the abstinence-only response to these kids seems to be either to pretend they don't exist or to withhold the means for them to manage their risks.
If you think the waiters are rude, you should see the manager.
2008-09-04, 12:01 PM #267
Originally posted by Ford:
really if you take the constitution at face value: All men are created equal.

that doesnt mean "american" men(read people) it means everyone on the planet. (and up in space if they happen to be an astronaut) the rights are inherent in being human.

so yeah, they arent really your "personal american rights," they're everyones.


actually if you READ section 1 of the 14th amendment, and take it at face value (not hard to do, it spells it out for you pretty directly) you wind up with quite a different picture:

Amendment XIV

Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
Welcome to the douchebag club. We'd give you some cookies, but some douche ate all of them. -Rob
2008-09-04, 2:18 PM #268
He simply made a mistake. It's kind of like how people assume seperation of church and state is in the constitution.

It is true that a founding principle of this country is that all men are created equal by God. That statement is not limited to Americans. It is also true that the constitution is the foundation for this country's law and that it can in no way describe the equality of people that are not citizens of our country (in the above cited text).
"I would rather claim to be an uneducated man than be mal-educated and claim to be otherwise." - Wookie 03:16

2008-09-04, 2:23 PM #269
Actually, it does not specify citizens there. It says "nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law;" It says person, not citizen. What you should be arguing is that this restriction explicitly says STATES may not do this, and the federal government is not a 'state' (in the sense the word is used in the constitution).
2008-09-04, 2:27 PM #270
I'm referring to the concept that all of humanity is described as equal in our constitution when the text above only refers to US citizens and persons within our borders.
"I would rather claim to be an uneducated man than be mal-educated and claim to be otherwise." - Wookie 03:16

2008-09-04, 2:35 PM #271
Originally posted by Wookie06:
I'm referring to the concept that all of humanity is described as equal in our constitution when the text above only refers to US citizens and persons within our borders.


so that is why the US needs secret prisons abroad?
2008-09-04, 2:52 PM #272
Originally posted by JM:
Actually, it does not specify citizens there. It says "nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law;" It says person, not citizen. What you should be arguing is that this restriction explicitly says STATES may not do this, and the federal government is not a 'state' (in the sense the word is used in the constitution).
The purpose of the 14th amendment is to force the states to honor the bill of rights. Before it was passed, only the federal government had to. So if the states have to abide by something under the 14th amendment, chances are the federal government does as well.
Democracy: rule by the stupid
2008-09-04, 2:53 PM #273
Originally posted by Kieran Horn:
Everyone loves milfs.


I think we have reached the true core of the debate...;)
www.dailyvault.com. - As Featured in Guitar Hero II!
2008-09-04, 3:15 PM #274
Originally posted by Nubs:
I think we have reached the true core of the debate...;)


For better or for worse, there are probably some people going Republican for that reason.
2008-09-04, 3:19 PM #275
Originally posted by Molgrew:
so that is why the US needs secret prisons abroad?


Yes. Duh.

How come when batman does **** like that it's badass, but we get Agent Sands doing some ****ed up **** and everyone is like ZOMG.

****ing bull**** double standard if you ask moi.

Also I'm fairly confident that the 14th amendment was not supposed to override the philosophical concept that all men are created equal.
Epstein didn't kill himself.
2008-09-04, 3:19 PM #276
You do have to realize that all of society is based around taking chicks and turning them into milfs. Fertility is hot, and there is not greater proof of fertility than a kid.
2008-09-04, 3:48 PM #277
Originally posted by JM:
Actually, it does not specify citizens there. It says "nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law;" It says person, not citizen. What you should be arguing is that this restriction explicitly says STATES may not do this, and the federal government is not a 'state' (in the sense the word is used in the constitution).


This is right, although obviously the federal government was prohibited from doing those things by the original Bill of Rights.

As for the part of the amendment that I believe Alran was pointing out, "privileges and immunities" aren't the same thing as rights. They've never been explicitly defined, and for the most part we just treat the privileges and immunities clause as though it doesn't exist. The remainder of the amendment states that life, liberty and property are not to be taken from any person by the states (and, of course, by the federal government, cf. Fifth Amendment) without due process of law, and that equal protection under the law is to be given to all persons within states' (or the federal government's) jurisdiction (not borders).
If you think the waiters are rude, you should see the manager.
2008-09-04, 4:41 PM #278
ok, that does make more sense if jurisdiction is not defined in terms of borders, hadn't thought of it like that.
Welcome to the douchebag club. We'd give you some cookies, but some douche ate all of them. -Rob
2008-09-04, 9:04 PM #279
We still shouldn't be holding people for years at a time without charge whether they're American or not.

And we certainly shouldn't be torturing anyone.
2008-09-04, 9:17 PM #280
Count on vinny for the liberal agenda spin :XD:

Just ball busting you there =P
"They're everywhere, the little harlots."
-Martyn
1234567891011

↑ Up to the top!