Log in

View Full Version : So.... what's up with Sarah Palin?



Pages : 1 [2] 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11

Paris
09-03-2008, 11:46 AM
Why? If every married couple, or even the average married couple, kept the number of their offspring to less than two, they wouldn't be even replacing themselves. Society would eventually run out of people within just a few generations. Already a looming reality in many European countries where they are giving couples incentives to have more children.

Less people isn't a bad thing unless you are heavily invested in real estate.:)

There is definately something odd about the choice of Palin for VP. It speaks to an impulsive tendency on McCain's part. He has had a reputation for impulsiveness in the past. There have been little things that point to this being an impulsive decision on McCain's part:

For instance, the local papers in Wasilla and Anchorage were not called by the campaign for clippings (Wasilla's paper has no online archives). Then there's the thing with the campaign people only going to Alaska to do local research after Palin had already been picked as VP to McCain. And of course, McCain was saying a day or two before his anouncement that he hadn't decided on a VP yet, which left reporters and pundits feeling incredulous that he still hadn't made a decision.

The pick says a lot about McCain. And he is the one that is running for president, not Palin. I do not want someone who is notorious for having a hair trigger temper and acts impulsively when it comes to big deisions to be the President of the United States and have ready access to the largest nuclear arsenal in the universe.

If this doesn't make you nervous, then you aren't paying attention.

bem401
09-03-2008, 11:52 AM
It's extremely unwise to debate abortion on this board, not to mention inflammatory. Especially if you're a known dirty cheap ass strip club customer. I suppose you belong to an era that preferred women barefoot and pregnant?

If you don't want an abortion, THEN DON'T FUCKING HAVE ONE!! Actually, do the world a favor and don't reproduce at all.

Know your audience and save your drivel for the congregation.

Sounds like I struck a nerve. BTW, I am neither a religious person nor the one who brought up the topic.

I do not prefer women barefoot and pregnant, but irresponsibility and selfishness are hardly appealing attributes.

As far as the name-calling goes, does it really serve anyone well to try throwing bombs on a site such as this?

Yekhefah
09-03-2008, 11:55 AM
I don't think her stance on abortion is relevant. Abortion is just a distraction issue anyway.

Miss_Luscious
09-03-2008, 12:02 PM
I don't think her stance on abortion is relevant. Abortion is just a distraction issue anyway.

Well some of us really want to have the right to chose. It's not a distraction issue, it is an important issue for many women. she opposes abortion and birth control. Why is that good for women at all?

MissTaylor
09-03-2008, 12:04 PM
It's not up for the VP to decide if abortion is legal or not....that's why it's a distraction issue.

and bem... go back to blue.

Eric Stoner
09-03-2008, 12:05 PM
I don't think her stance on abortion is relevant. Abortion is just a distraction issue anyway.

Unfortunately it's VERY important to extremists in both parties. While most Americans take and prefer a nuanced approach; the Dems are dominated by "any abortion; for anyone; at any time for any reason" while the Republicans are dominated by those who want all abortions banned.

The next President is likely to have at least two Supreme Court vacancies to fill.

bem401
09-03-2008, 12:17 PM
Unfortunately it's VERY important to extremists in both parties. While most Americans take and prefer a nuanced approach; the Dems are dominated by "any abortion; for anyone; at any time for any reason" while the Republicans are dominated by those who want all abortions banned.

The next President is likely to have at least two Supreme Court vacancies to fill.

Very true.

For the record, I do not oppose abortions in the cases of the life of the mother and to a lesser extent in cases of the health of the mother or rape or incest.

Miss T, your response is typical of what liberals do when faced with opinions they disagree with. Look at how liberal college students act when conservative speakers appear on campus and the liberals can't debate the issue on its merits. Hardly the party of free speech.

Budai
09-03-2008, 12:20 PM
Sounds like I struck a nerve...

Mission accomplished! ::)

Yekhefah
09-03-2008, 01:02 PM
Well some of us really want to have the right to chose. It's not a distraction issue, it is an important issue for many women. she opposes abortion and birth control. Why is that good for women at all?

She can oppose it all she wants, but there's sweet fuckall she can do about it. I'm pro-choice as well and keenly interested in keeping my birth control, but the Vice President by herself (even the president by himself) can't just ban abortion and birth control.

Abortion is a distraction issue. A lot of people get very wound up about it one way or the other, so even though it's not relevant to the candidate's job description you can focus on that issue instead of more relevant topics like taxes and foreign relations.

red red red
09-03-2008, 02:21 PM
Very true.

For the record, I do not oppose abortions in the cases of the life of the mother and to a lesser extent in cases of the health of the mother or rape or incest.

Miss T, your response is typical of what liberals do when faced with opinions they disagree with. Look at how liberal college students act when conservative speakers appear on campus and the liberals can't debate the issue on its merits. Hardly the party of free speech.

Free speech means that people who are extremely disconnected from the rhetorical issues they espouse can talk all day, all night, and until they're blue in the face regardless of the fact that their material is the same old shit that's been said better by better.

It does not mean that anyone is going to be interested in "debating" with you.

I'd be super interested to hear what Sarah Palin has to say about the issue, if she can ever be bothered to fill us in on what's going on in her head instead of pretending that her daughter's pregnancy is something she's above discussing with the country.

Usually the people who are most interested in the pro-life/pro-choice debate are men, and its difficult to take a pro-life man seriously. It often just looks like they can't stand the fact that the choice isn't and will never be theirs. The only power over actual life-or-death life that they have is to kill someone.

retiredangel
09-03-2008, 02:51 PM
I think the "abortion issue" is huge: like SO many other very pertinant issues (homeless,hungry working- poor,veterans needs,the list goes on and on...) that should be formost in this election year,it's getting shoved under a rug by the candidates as a "well we dont' want to chat about any of this,it's off limits..." WTF???Having lived "pre" the madate that we DO have a right to choose,I personally don't ever want to see another woman be "dictated to" again! I had a "back alley" abortion in my late teens and trust me,you don't want to have to resort to that.
I don't think she is a "good choice" because I simply think she is lacking in what the "leader of the free world" NEEDS to have in order to be taken seriously by the world at large...McCain went for the Christian vote,the female vote,the right to life vote,the parents of special-needs kids vote,he's appealing to the "everyman" and not the real peopls who will be voting that are concerned about the future of the US and it's people.It's like she's being trotted out there like some sort of Barbie-doll: "Isn't she PRETTY???" Oh...don't ask her to talk about any of her rather poor personal choices...that's off limits!What are her platforms on the things that SHOULD matter???We're being presented these neat little "packages" and literally being told to "pick a door"... please...does anyone really think she could RUN the COUNTRY if she had to???Based on what??? That she can choose to have as many kids as she wants no matter the outcome? That her liberal parenting is setting the stage for teen-preggers to become acceptable? I think she's a rather bad joke (ducks the flying stilletos...) sorry.
He didn't in my opinion offer the US someone who was handpicked for her excellent qualifications either as a politician or as a responsible adult.

TheSexKitten
09-03-2008, 03:05 PM
Here's something genuinely troubling about Sarah Palin. When she was elected Mayor of Wasilla, one of the first things she did was ask the local librarian to ban certain books from the PUBLIC Library. When she refused, Palin fired her but was forced to re-hire her after she threatened to sue.

eek... :no:

Tauries
09-03-2008, 03:14 PM
It often just looks like they can't stand the fact that the choice isn't and will never be theirs. The only power over actual life-or-death life that they have is to kill someone.

Unless you were the product of an asexual hermaphrodite birth, your comment displays a uncommon lack of intelligence and respect. Displaying such ignorance makes the "sperm donors" you apparently hate so much look far more rational than you....just an observation:O .

Optimist
09-03-2008, 03:55 PM
They absolutely should not pop out children regardless of the ability to pay for them. There is a concept called responsibility which dictates you take precaution for what you do or be prepared to deal with the consequences of your actions.


No one but the parties involved should be forced to pay for their abortions and only a limited (and temporary ) amount of money should be made available to those who behave irresponsibly.

Where's Palin's daughter and millions of teens across the country going to get money to have an abortion, medical care, diapers? YOU kemosabe! Where else? There's this thing called POVERTY. Read up on it.


Having an abortion for anything other than medical reasons is as selfish a decision as one could make. There are plenty of families out there with several children who struggle to get by, and lots of couples who cannot have children, yet you advocate the right to abort because a baby is too expensive or too inconvenient right now? No matter how desperate a particular situation might seem to be, I fail to see how abortion is the solution.





Dress it up any way you like. You're still talking about the right to kill a baby.

There is this thing called rape.... Some people would love nothing better than to take responsiblity when raped or when they find their child has horrific genetc defects or when they can't afford more children but other people want to get in the way. (This means YOU)

The divorce rate is over 50% and of those women left raising kids on one income 40% are under the poverty level. That means they are homeless, without medical care, food, books for school. Yeah...mean selfish women wanting to EAT, wanting HEALTH and safety. Shame on them!!!!!

xdamage
09-03-2008, 04:57 PM
The abortion issue (and no BC ever) is one indicator of a black and white mind, essentially a child's intellect in an adult body. Someone who can't cope with social complexities, gray scales, the realities that there are extenuating circumstances, who wants rules so simple and easy a child can understand them.

Such intellects have a way of making dangerously bad decisions and scare the fuck out of me.

fancygirl
09-03-2008, 05:00 PM
Why? If every married couple, or even the average married couple, kept the number of their offspring to less than two, they wouldn't be even replacing themselves. Society would eventually run out of people within just a few generations. Already a looming reality in many European countries where they are giving couples incentives to have more children.



a couple generations of not encouraging breeding would
be nice. brings down demand on resources,
brings down pollution (or the rate of it hopefully anyways),
as well as demand of social programs.

it seems like the world has TOO many
people. we don't need more. at least
for a couple generations which would
be too short to override our genetic
programming to breed.

xdamage
09-03-2008, 05:05 PM
a couple generations of not encouraging breeding would
be nice. brings down demand on resources,
brings down pollution (or the rate of it hopefully anyways),
as well as demand of social programs.

it seems like the world has TOO many
people. we don't need more. at least
for a couple generations which would
be too short to override our genetic
programming to breed.

Can't do it... long ago in the past God commanded people to be fruitful and multiply. That is the rule. Good children follow the rule. It would after all require thought to consider that when that was the rule, there were a small fraction of the number of people alive today. Like rules can never ever change you know. That would make it all complex and stuff and people's brains might explode if we asked them to consider that the situation has changed, and apparently God isn't coming back today to give a new rule. Stop having so many children because you foolish idiots can't see there are finite resources and it cannot support an infinite number of you.

p.s. yes, I jest, but only sort of.

fancygirl
09-03-2008, 05:13 PM
Sounds like I struck a nerve. BTW, I am neither a religious person nor the one who brought up the topic.

I do not prefer women barefoot and pregnant, but irresponsibility and selfishness are hardly appealing attributes.



it's irresponsible and selfish to birth a kid
that one isn't financially or emotionally capable
of raising. and adoptig it out isn't an option for
everyone either because of the emotional and
physical toll it takes on the body, plus the ridiculous
expense of adoption-- so much so that many adopters
are going overseas.

it's also selfish to try to put your opinion on others
and acting as if they are the scum of the earth for
aborting their fetus. I don't want a person raising
a kid they don't want or cant afford.

condoms break, rape occurs, unwanted pregnancies happen
to responsible people. it's not mosly selfishness that prompts
abortion-- it's clearly weighing the pros and cons.

and if you're not religious, why so venemous?
maybe there is no God. maybe the fetus isn't
human until three months after conception.
maybe aborting that potential human frees that spirit up
to be reincarnated into a family that wants it and can care for it.

in that last case it would be irresponsible and selfish NOT
to abort it.

Zia_Abq
09-03-2008, 05:16 PM
The abortion issue (and no BC ever) is one indicator of a black and white mind, essentially a child's intellect in an adult body. Someone who can't cope with social complexities, gray scales, the realities that there are extenuating circumstances, who wants rules so simple and easy a child can understand them.

Such intellects have a way of making dangerously bad decisions and scare the fuck out of me.

:thanx:

Miss_Luscious
09-03-2008, 05:26 PM
She can oppose it all she wants, but there's sweet fuckall she can do about it. I'm pro-choice as well and keenly interested in keeping my birth control, but the Vice President by herself (even the president by himself) can't just ban abortion and birth control.

Abortion is a distraction issue. A lot of people get very wound up about it one way or the other, so even though it's not relevant to the candidate's job description you can focus on that issue instead of more relevant topics like taxes and foreign relations.

Are you aware that Roe vs Wade is being upheld by only one supreme court vote? And are you also aware that the next president will very likely appoint one if not two new supreme court justice(s)? If we have people in the white house that oppose the right to choose (as McCain and Palin do) then Roe vs Wade is as good as gone.

threlayer
09-03-2008, 06:05 PM
The VP could conceivably do something about abortion laws and funding, as could any other high level electee or appointee. and that is to (1) influence the selection of the next Supreme Court Justice; (2) influence the administration of money/grants to institutions that support "right-to-choose." However, the public has largely gotten fed up with religious influences on politicians and politics. And if they haven't then they are stupid and deserve whatever they get. Eventually realism will catch up with most of them.

G-Real
09-03-2008, 06:06 PM
it's irresponsible and selfish to birth a kid
that one isn't financially or emotionally capable
of raising. and adoptig it out isn't an option for
everyone either because of the emotional and
physical toll it takes on the body, plus the ridiculous
expense of adoption-- so much so that many adopters
are going overseas.

it's also selfish to try to put your opinion on others
and acting as if they are the scum of the earth for
aborting their fetus. I don't want a person raising
a kid they don't want or cant afford.

condoms break, rape occurs, unwanted pregnancies happen
to responsible people. it's not mosly selfishness that prompts
abortion-- it's clearly weighing the pros and cons.

and if you're not religious, why so venemous?
maybe there is no God. maybe the fetus isn't
human until three months after conception.
maybe aborting that potential human frees that spirit up
to be reincarnated into a family that wants it and can care for it.

in that last case it would be irresponsible and selfish NOT
to abort it.

lets not forget that most of these people (white christian conservatives) who want to stop abortion, would never adopt, or even if they would they most likely wouldn't adopt a child that is not the same color as them.

MissTaylor
09-03-2008, 06:47 PM
bem, blue is calling you. Seriously... what is your purpose on this board? Yet another PL?

Yekhefah
09-03-2008, 06:49 PM
Are you aware that Roe vs Wade is being upheld by only one supreme court vote? And are you also aware that the next president will very likely appoint one if not two new supreme court justice(s)? If we have people in the white house that oppose the right to choose (as McCain and Palin do) then Roe vs Wade is as good as gone.

Yes, I'm aware. I'm conflicted about Roe; technically it's a bad decision and the Supreme Court really overstepped with it, and a reversal of Roe would allow the issue to go back to the states where it belongs. OTOH, since the Tenth Amendment is routinely violated every day, I see no reason to suddenly enforce it only for Roe.

At any rate I'm not convinced that any mainstream Republican leadership actually wants to ban abortion. It's like Democrats and healthcare, they use the issue to stir up their base into a froth and then they just do whatever their corporate sponsors are paying them to do (which is usually nothing). It's just a big distraction.

Dottie Rebel
09-03-2008, 07:20 PM
Actually we are called pro-choicers. I don't know of anyone who's pro-abortion.

I'm pro-abortion.

Bem, what compells you to spend your time on a board geared toward the needs of a group of professional women and espouse your position regarding issues that deal with their bodies? I would never want to hang out somewhere where my opinion wouldn't be valued or even relevant.

Melonie
09-03-2008, 10:43 PM
^^^ in regard to McCain's 'longevity' prospects, you might want to have a look at this video clip ... . This is a mother's day MSNBC Tim Russert interview with McCain's 94 year old mother ! Ironically, Tim Russert is now dead, but Roberta McCain and her son are still going strong.

miabella
09-04-2008, 01:05 AM
a couple generations of not encouraging breeding would
be nice. brings down demand on resources,
brings down pollution (or the rate of it hopefully anyways),
as well as demand of social programs.

it seems like the world has TOO many
people. we don't need more. at least
for a couple generations which would
be too short to override our genetic
programming to breed.

wrong. when people have 1 child or be childfree, they tend to expend vast amounts of resources lavishing themselves and/or the child, often well in excess of what resources are consumed by larger families.

single-child families tend to buy piles of toys for the kid and let the kid run the water for hours, etc-- it adds up way more than the 4-kid family that has the kids pick fruit for school clothes money-- that's a net economic contribution.

the myth is that fewer kids=fewer resources, when anyone can look around and see something totally different in upscale neighborhoods.

minnow
09-04-2008, 01:10 AM
[quote=Ook;1693390]Good points, Melonie^^^

<<snip>>>

there's the numbers game: 1/3 of all U.S. Presidents have left office prematurely.

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Check your math or history, I am only aware of 9 out of 42 U.S. presidents who left office prematurely, only 4 of which were due to a non-assasination death. That's slightly less than a 10% chance of dying in office due to illness, only slightly more than 20% of U.S. Presidents have left office prematurely.

Alexxx
09-04-2008, 01:31 AM
He chose Sarah Palin because she isn't part of any "machine." She has no "big family name", "agenda", or anything like that. She's someone that a lot of people can see eye to eye with. I think she is an excellent choice. Plus, she has a head on her shoulders.
I think its a great change for our country to have her running with him. I'd vote for her for prez. I'm from Alaska, by the way... :)

xdamage
09-04-2008, 05:53 AM
wrong. when people have 1 child or be childfree, they tend to expend vast amounts of resources lavishing themselves and/or the child, often well in excess of what resources are consumed by larger families.

single-child families tend to buy piles of toys for the kid and let the kid run the water for hours, etc-- it adds up way more than the 4-kid family that has the kids pick fruit for school clothes money-- that's a net economic contribution.

the myth is that fewer kids=fewer resources, when anyone can look around and see something totally different in upscale neighborhoods.

I don't know how many children you have raised until college age or beyond but the toys are a minor expense. The big expenses are saving for college (and many large families just don't leaving their kids further at risk of being poor), food, clothing, housing, transportation, medical bills (even if you have insurance, it doesn't cover all medicines, emergencies, dental care, glasses, etc. and it only takes one big bill to wipe out a big chunk of savings), time required to take them to special activities, time required to help with homework, and later in life... they will want to be driving vehicles of their own and starting their own families.

The toys are just a little plastic and have little or no impact as compared to the other resources a human uses. But when you aren't broke you certainly can afford a few $20 or even $50 toys vs those who are living month to month.

We never let our kids run the water for hours. I think this is a TV land mythology more then any kind of provable fact, but even so, water is relatively cheap and it is recycled (I.e., goes back into the ground, evaporates, rains, etc., and in nature the vast majority spills off into the ocean and nobody cares that nature is wasting this resource).

It think it is just what it seems to be. Families who have less kids (2 in my case) have more free resources to spend on toys, save for college, help their kids get started with their own lives, etc. I don't think anyone having a lot of kids is doing it to save resource use. Even if you can hand me down something, it is never cheaper then just not having to do so at all.

Jay Zeno
09-04-2008, 07:08 AM
Actually we are called pro-choicers. I don't know of anyone who's pro-abortion.I shrug at this one myself. Pro-choicers like to call opponents "anti-choice." Pro-lifers like to call opponents "anti-life" (or "pro-death," I suppose).

To me, pro-abortion means you are in favor of legalized abortion. Anti-abortion means you are opposed to legalized abortion. That way, I skip all the branding.

Dirty Ernie
09-04-2008, 07:56 AM
Well since the other thread has devolved into a catfight, I'll stick to this one.
One thing Palin shares with the good ol' boys in Washington is the penchant to fabricate.
Palin implied in her speech that construction on the pipeline had begun. It's nowhere near breaking ground. It is may never break ground. They passed a bill to insure a $500 million incentive will be paid to the Canadian firm she chose to build it. Alaska first, Canada second, America third?

Her anti-earmark stance is going to come back to bite her, also. She may have thrown out some corrupt state pols, but her relationship with Ted Stevens is still a close one. As mayor she hired a lobbyist and personally went to DC with her hand out. She finagled as much of our tax dollars as the city of Boise, a city with a population 30 times greater than Wasilla.

As governor Alaska receives far more per capita in special funding than any other state.

She implemented a 2% sales tax in her town, which is a huge number, and apparently left the town in debt. Not to mention her redistrubution of oil profits through a massive windfall profits tax.
Geez I sound like Mel, here.;D

I doubt these facts will change her standing with the Republican base, because they're more interested in her relationship with God than any principles of ideaology.

doc-catfish
09-04-2008, 08:04 AM
a couple generations of not encouraging breeding would
be nice. brings down demand on resources,
brings down pollution (or the rate of it hopefully anyways),
as well as demand of social programs.
Social Security is a social program. The way it works is that money collected from the paychecks of working age people goes to retired people. Problem is you often need several working people paying into the system to equal the output of one retiree. If the ratio of workers to retirees falls to low (which is happening already), or worse yet inverts because people are having less than the 2.3 kids needed to maintain a flat population, well you've got a high demand on a dwindling resource. So you've either got to cut the bennies for the retirees, or tax the snot out of the workers.

Then you have this mountain of debt that current and past generations have heaped on society, with the hopes that future generations will be there to pay it off. Problem is if fewer people are around to pay that debt then each one of them is going to shoulder the burden that much harder.

[
it seems like the world has TOO many
people. we don't need more.
In the developing world, (China, India, Africa, Latin America) I would agree with you. In western society, and particularly Europe, just the opposite.

Note, I'm NOT suggesting we follow our grandparents/great grandparents example and have 8-12 kids per couple. Our ancestors lived in different times where large families were needed for cheap labor on the family farm. In our modern society where family farms are the exception, not so much anymore. But the developing world is not on the same page.

Zia_Abq
09-04-2008, 09:41 AM
He chose Sarah Palin because she isn't part of any "machine." She has no "big family name", "agenda", or anything like that. She's someone that a lot of people can see eye to eye with. I think she is an excellent choice. Plus, she has a head on her shoulders.
I think its a great change for our country to have her running with him. I'd vote for her for prez. I'm from Alaska, by the way... :)

And so do several other respected republican women such as Olympia Snow and Kay Baliey Hutchinson and those women have A LOT more experience so why did the GOP pick Palin and not them?

I’ll tell you why. Because unlike the other women I mentioned, Palin is pretty. Unlike Palin they don't have a newborn special needs baby either. It’s a proven FACT that people are drawn to, nicer to and allow attractive people to get away with a lot more in life. Many people also get super mushy about new babies, especially ones with special needs.

As much as I disagree with conservative political opinions I feel just slightly bad for Palin because she and her family are being USED by the GOP. It’s offensive and I don’t understand why more republican women don’t see or acknowledge this reality.

Optimist
09-04-2008, 11:07 AM
They spent a lot of time during her speech focusing on the baby. I thought that was odd until I noticed the child was passed to about four people in the time it took for Palin to deliver her speech. Even John Mc Cain's wife held the child and she just met these people five days ago! I think it was an attempt to distract from the boring spots of her speech and make them all look like one family instead of two candidates applying for a job!

fancygirl
09-04-2008, 11:56 AM
wrong. when people have 1 child or be childfree, they tend to expend vast amounts of resources lavishing themselves and/or the child, often well in excess of what resources are consumed by larger families.

single-child families tend to buy piles of toys for the kid and let the kid run the water for hours, etc-- it adds up way more than the 4-kid family that has the kids pick fruit for school clothes money-- that's a net economic contribution.

the myth is that fewer kids=fewer resources, when anyone can look around and see something totally different in upscale neighborhoods.



all right then. tax incentives for zero kid families
with bonuses for families that have members that
work in high death job or have members that
voluntarily take themselves off the earth.

bem401
09-04-2008, 02:02 PM
Where's Palin's daughter and millions of teens across the country going to get money to have an abortion, medical care, diapers? YOU kemosabe! Where else? There's this thing called POVERTY. Read up on it.

With all due respect, Optimist....

This is my problem because....? I've suffered all the consequences of every dumb thing I've ever done. I found a way to get through it. Why shouldn't I be able to expect the same of others, especially when their way out involves ending an innocent life.



There is this thing called rape.... Some people would love nothing better than to take responsiblity when raped or when they find their child has horrific genetc defects or when they can't afford more children but other people want to get in the way. (This means YOU)


Please read the posts.... I am not opposed to exceptions for extreme cases, but financial considerations are not among them. Ask any child born into poverty if they would have preferred their mother aborted them.


The divorce rate is over 50% and of those women left raising kids on one income 40% are under the poverty level. That means they are homeless, without medical care, food, books for school. Yeah...mean selfish women wanting to EAT, wanting HEALTH and safety. Shame on them!!!!!

If they got themselves into this predicament by having unprotected sex with deadbeat losers they may or may not have been married to, why are they still continuing that behavior? If they continue the same behavior and get pregnant again and choose to abort for selfish reasons, then yes, shame on them.

Jay Zeno
09-04-2008, 02:12 PM
Well, I dunno. I just had lunch with a bunch of business types who felt that Gov. Palin "knocked it out of the park." They were discussing it pretty excitedly. The discussion comes around to me, and I said, well, I was disappointed. Silence. Minority of one.

Apparently, my observations don't meet up with other people's. No surprise there. These are pretty sharp people, too.

bem401
09-04-2008, 02:15 PM
it's irresponsible and selfish to birth a kid
that one isn't financially or emotionally capable
of raising. and adoptig it out isn't an option for
everyone either because of the emotional and
physical toll it takes on the body, plus the ridiculous
expense of adoption-- so much so that many adopters
are going overseas.

it's also selfish to try to put your opinion on others
and acting as if they are the scum of the earth for
aborting their fetus. I don't want a person raising
a kid they don't want or cant afford.

condoms break, rape occurs, unwanted pregnancies happen
to responsible people. it's not mosly selfishness that prompts
abortion-- it's clearly weighing the pros and cons.

and if you're not religious, why so venemous?
maybe there is no God. maybe the fetus isn't
human until three months after conception.
maybe aborting that potential human frees that spirit up
to be reincarnated into a family that wants it and can care for it.

in that last case it would be irresponsible and selfish NOT
to abort it.

So by aborting the fetus you are actually doing society good? And don't kid yourself, unless you are going to cite the life/health of the mother, rape or incest, it is all about selfishness. Other people find themselves in such situations and just make the necessary sacrifices and manage to get by..

And I'm not suggesting I have the right to tell a woman what she should or shouldn't do with her body, up to the point where she is carrying another life that can't speak for itself.

bem401
09-04-2008, 02:15 PM
Well, I dunno. I just had lunch with a bunch of business types who felt that Gov. Palin "knocked it out of the park." They were discussing it pretty excitedly. The discussion comes around to me, and I said, well, I was disappointed. Silence. Minority of one.

Apparently, my observations don't meet up with other people's. No surprise there. These are pretty sharp people, too.


Jay, she kicked ass.

Jay Zeno
09-04-2008, 02:25 PM
I will give her props for being unruffled. It would be easy to be a basket case, speaking in front of a stadium and national television audience.

But content? Platitudes and gratuitous jabs. If they're platitudes and insults that appeal to you, I guess it was kick-ass. I was hoping for more substance, a lot more.

bem401
09-04-2008, 02:49 PM
I will give her props for being unruffled. It would be easy to be a basket case, speaking in front of a stadium and national television audience.

But content? Platitudes and gratuitous jabs. If they're platitudes and insults that appeal to you, I guess it was kick-ass. I was hoping for more substance, a lot more.

Tonight is the substance speech. That always comes from the guy on the top of the ballot.

BTW, i heard today that the teleprompter malfunctioned and she did muuch of the speech from memory and what cards she had in front of her. All the more impressive if in fact that was the case.

sapphiregirl
09-04-2008, 02:52 PM
I will give her props for being unruffled. It would be easy to be a basket case, speaking in front of a stadium and national television audience.

But content? Platitudes and gratuitous jabs. If they're platitudes and insults that appeal to you, I guess it was kick-ass. I was hoping for more substance, a lot more.



Yeah...if she acts like that in the debates she will look bad really fast.

Jay Zeno
09-04-2008, 02:53 PM
Big if. I wouldn't automatically believe it either from the Democrats or Republicans. Very self-serving story. Yeah, call me skeptical.

I don't care about people using teleprompters - they all do. But she had that teleprompter stare the whole time. But, yes, she was very composed. Good audience contact, good expression.

Optimist
09-04-2008, 02:54 PM
With all due respect, Optimist....
Please read the posts.... I am not opposed to exceptions for extreme cases, but financial considerations are not among them. Ask any child born into poverty if they would have preferred their mother aborted them.

I heard you, bem. I just don't agree.



If they got themselves into this predicament by having unprotected sex with deadbeat losers they may or may not have been married to, why are they still continuing that behavior? If they continue the same behavior and get pregnant again and choose to abort for selfish reasons, then yes, shame on them.

Are you aware that most people who are homeless weren't always? So today's stable guy can become tomorrow's hard luck case through many unfortunate scenarios. When the money is gone it's gone. Now, our theoretical mom-to-be must hand her child off to a government agency otherwise they'll take it for malnutrition and neglect and put her in jail to boot! Who pays to run said agency....you do! ;D

Optimist
09-04-2008, 02:58 PM
Jay, I think you just have higher standards and expectations of your prospective candidates than your friends do.

Jay Zeno
09-04-2008, 02:58 PM
I guess the delegates must have had mini cattle prods stuck up them, because they seemed to jump up and scream at the most meaningless things. :shrug: In fairness, I noticed the same thing at the DNC. I think it must be a delegate requirement.

Optimist
09-04-2008, 02:59 PM
See, that's your problem right there... Unrealistic expectations. :)

I would hope for more detail and issues from McCain's acceptance speech. From the conventions I remember watching, the Veep's speech has a prime goal of firing up the delegates and making them feel good about the party, the top of the ticket, and their chances of beating those evil opponents in November. Oh, and most important, not stealing the boss' thunder.

I wasn't even planning to watch, but hey, the season opener of Bones ended just in time and there was nothing good on, so... I thought it was pretty prosaic, but that was all I was expecting. I guess the delegates must have had mini cattle prods stuck up them, because they seemed to jump up and scream at the most meaningless things. :shrug:

So no, you're not the only one left unimpressed.

OMG Pan Dah!!!! We finally agree on something!! ;D

bem401
09-04-2008, 03:16 PM
Are you aware that most people who are homeless weren't always? So today's stable guy can become tomorrow's hard luck case through many unfortunate scenarios. When the money is gone it's gone. Now, our theoretical mom-to-be must hand her child off to a government agency otherwise they'll take it for malnutrition and neglect and put her in jail to boot! Who pays to run said agency....you do! ;D

I fully understand Optimist, but I still cannot connect the dots to where abortion is the solution.

The real solution is not to make a bad situation worse by taking unnecessary risks. Any woman ( or family for that matter ) living in poverty should do everything possible to prevent becoming pregnant, up to and including abstinence, if that's what it takes. It's all about being responsible.

rozz
09-04-2008, 04:09 PM
Any woman ( or family for that matter ) living in poverty should do everything possible to prevent becoming pregnant, up to and including abstinence, if that's what it takes. It's all about being responsible.

I have to disagree, as this hurts my brain-meats. Yes, it would be wonderful if people were responsible regarding sex. They aren't. They may lack the means or the education (thank you, federally funded abstinence-only programs) to make wise decisions. The public school system woefully underprepares kids for responsible sexuality. I have worked in Boston Medical Center, fighting for grants and educating teens about how to prevent pregnancy and STIs. I know from experience that birth control isn't cheap, and it isn't provided to those who so desperately need it. At BMC, we would run out all the time. It is not fair to first undereducate children, chastise them for wanting to do something that feels good, then punish them by forcing them to raise a child they never wanted.

You cannot judge a woman in poverty who becomes pregnant. It may be a choice between feeding the children she already has and a package of condoms, or birth control pills. She may not be able to say "no" to the man in her life. She may be sleeping with a man in order to avoid sleeping on the streets. You do not understand her situation. Please don't presume to judge her simply because she beomes pregnant with a child she does not want.