|
|
Post by The New Guy on Sept 2, 2008 23:05:46 GMT -5
actually, wyoming is the least populated state in the union. followed closely by vermont, north dakota, alaska, south dakota, and ......(gasp!) deleware!
i wonder what all the hub-bub is among liberals vis-a-vis gov. palin? if she is not a threat and has no chance of being elected on her ticket why are libs in such an uproar???
|
|
|
|
Post by jgaffney on Sept 3, 2008 13:36:46 GMT -5
Newt Gingrich was interviewed on the convention floor by an MSNBC reporter, who got this earful:
Just how much does Obama's experience as a "community organizer" trump Sarah Palin's experience as a mayor and governor?
BTW, how do I link to a YouTube video without bringing in the ggarbage on the right half of the screen?
|
|
|
|
Post by The Big Dog on Sept 3, 2008 13:47:11 GMT -5
To answer TNG's question at the top of this page we have a truly wonderful piece from the editorial board at the WSJ which ran in this morning's edition.
[/url]
September 3, 2008; Page A22
Even as the Obama camp ponders how best to handle John McCain's veep pick of Sarah Palin, the high priests and priestesses of the media have marked her as an apostate. The Beltway class is in full-throated rebellion against a nondomesticated conservative who might pose a threat to their coronation of Barack Obama and the return of Camelot-on-the-Potomac.
<< snopped >>
What's really going on here is that the Beltway class can see how popular the Palin pick is with Republicans outside Washington, and especially with middle-class conservatives. As Richard Land, a leader with the Southern Baptist Convention, said Monday, John McCain's selection of Sarah Palin closed the "enthusiasm gap" between the two parties.
There is nothing more dangerous to entrenched Washington power than a populist conservative who looks unlikely to buy into Washington's creature comforts. Take a close look at Governor Palin's record on ethics and energy in Alaska, and it becomes clear what this Beltway outburst is actually about. [/quote]
|
|
|
|
Post by JustMyOpinion on Sept 3, 2008 14:22:33 GMT -5
[quote author=len board=uspolitics She may be good at her job/s in the least populated state of the US, a good mother, hunter, cook, yadda, yadda, yadda, but I just don't agree her stance on women, regarding abortion. She is pro choice, that is her choice, but if she wins, and the Republicans have a majority Supreme Court justices, we could see a reversal of Roe vs Wade.
She also doesn't beleive in sex education in schools, but rather, abstinence. I agree with abstinence, but I think it is necessary to educate young people about sex, even if you don't buy your son condoms or take your daughter to the dr. for birth control.Mink, I agree with you on the above points. Maybe if her daughter had sex education in school she wouldn't be pregnant!  Secondly, I'm always a bit surprised to read posts from people in this forum saying they don't want women to have an abortion option, yet 99% don't want the government to tell them whether or not they have the right own/carry a firearm etc. Double standard? I don't think it is the government's job to dictate what women can, or cannot do with their bodies. |
|
|
|
Post by JustMyOpinion on Sept 3, 2008 14:56:24 GMT -5
Let me try to understand a few things.. since this is where I come to learn about politics. Obama has no in-depth experience, but that's okay because he is an outsider who will bring change. So he selects a man with experience as a VP which is good because he had experience, but bad because he is a Washington insider and does not represent change.
McCain is a "same old" typical republican white male candidate representing no change, but that is okay because we don't need change. So he selects a female, rebellious VP which is good because she will fight against the party line when needed to get things done, but she has no experience so that is bad, even though in what she has shown she can get things done in what little experience she has....
Oh I'm confused again. I do have one point I'd like to make about experience. I really don't think its such a bad thing for the VP to have less. McCain has plenty anyway, and so will many/most of his cabinet. I just think its more important that the Prez have it than the VP. He is the boss. But if you don't have it, then its not a really bad move to select a VP who does. Sort of evens things out. All in all, stop worrying about experience since that's evened out now, and please stop worrying about gender and race and who picked who for that.... We all know its a play to the voters... its politics after all.
Stick to policy stuff to help out poor me make my decision!
Thank you. I LOVED this post! I feel the same way! Thank you for posting what I've been thinking... ;D |
|
Len
Apprentice Member
Posts: 74
|
Post by Len on Sept 3, 2008 15:03:32 GMT -5
Len, thanks for your input on women and their very important role as a mother, nurse, doctor, teacher, cook, gardener, wife, lover, friend ....etc. You have every right to your opinion on Palin (good for you)!! I just don't share the same point of view. She may be good at her job/s in the least populated state of the US, a good mother, hunter, cook, yadda, yadda, yadda, but I just don't agree her stance on women, regarding abortion. She is pro choice, that is her choice, but if she wins, and the Republicans have a majority Supreme Court justices, we could see a reversal of Roe vs Wade. She also doesn't beleive in sex education in schools, but rather, abstinence. I agree with abstinence, but I think it is necessary to educate young people about sex, even if you don't buy your son condoms or take your daughter to the dr. for birth control.As I am finding more about her, I just don't agree with her stances on some issues, but she is a very pretty American and I do think women are strong, but not all can run a country and I'm not so sure Palin can. Not asking you to share my POV, Mink, all I am asking is to reason it out. The abortion "issue" is more complex than simply "being against it". The right to get an abortion is not really up for discussion any longer, and you know it as well. It is the law, and will be for the next 75+ years, or until available new technology catches up with politics. The abortion issues now are about "late term", which means up to the moment of birth, and there is a vocal group that pushes for "termination" up to a year after birth. There are the complex matters in research science that want "tissues" to experiment upon. When explained in appropriate detail to the public, they will make faces, say "yuch" and not want such activities either. So lumping it all under "abortion" is fakery of great proportions when the public at large is told to ignore THAT man behind the curtain. We both know that we are going to live with choice in this great land, and we both can still educate women in our respective views. But it is the upcoming abortion-related issues that many wish to ignore by a simply dismissal in saying, "She's against abortion". There will not be a reversal of Roe v Wade no matter who is appointed to the Supremes. I am surprised that you make two contradictory statements! "She doesn't believe in sex education in schools, but rather abstinence". I am fairly certain that to promote abstinence, one must teach sex ed! First, why should a government worker teach sex ed, I'll never know. No wonder the population count is diminishing! Second, it's not the role of gov't to do that. Third, and for real, the real tone of the choice in abstinence is to give detailed information WITH the conclusion that abstinence is best. Current tone is "most WILL do it, so these are the things to watch out for", which is a self-full filling attitude. Demographics show that folks under 20 have the fastest rate of increase in STDs in our country, and sex ed has been taught for longer than that. If you've ever raised teens then you know attitude is about all of it! Finally, I would rather have a weak president, as that is how this experiment was set up. It is CONGRESS that touches the money. It is the House of Reps that starts all bills. For the last few, mostly Democratic presidents, power has been arrested by that office. Oh well. Oh, and BTW, she is strong enough to run our country. But I don't think she'll need to. I saw McCain's mom on TV last night. She's about 90+ and doesn't look a day over 60, and appeared sharp! So it might be in his genes! Anyway, consider......and reason it out. She's the right person for VP. |
|
|
|
Post by The Big Dog on Sept 3, 2008 16:19:36 GMT -5
Mink, I agree with you on the above points. Maybe if her daughter had sex education in school she wouldn't be pregnant! The age of consent in Alaska is 16. Bristol Palin is 17. What's your point? And what does this family matter have to do with politics? Please show me where I have ever said that I think it's government's job to dictate what women can and cannot do. I am and have always been pro-choice. Having said that there is a constitutional proscription on the government abridging my right to own a firearm. There is no such proscription in the Constitution concerning abortion. Check the document yourself, and read Roe v Wade. It ain't there. And now back to your regular topic. |
|
|
|
Post by The New Guy on Sept 3, 2008 22:41:52 GMT -5
does anyone know if her daughter DID NOT have sex ed in school?
also, i wonder what percentage of pregnant teens DID have sex ed in school?
|
|
|
|
Post by Mink on Sept 3, 2008 22:48:55 GMT -5
[quote author=len board=uspolitics She may be good at her job/s in the least populated state of the US, a good mother, hunter, cook, yadda, yadda, yadda, but I just don't agree her stance on women, regarding abortion. She is pro choice, that is her choice, but if she wins, and the Republicans have a majority Supreme Court justices, we could see a reversal of Roe vs Wade.
She also doesn't beleive in sex education in schools, but rather, abstinence. I agree with abstinence, but I think it is necessary to educate young people about sex, even if you don't buy your son condoms or take your daughter to the dr. for birth control.Mink, I agree with you on the above points. Maybe if her daughter had sex education in school she wouldn't be pregnant! Secondly, I'm always a bit surprised to read posts from people in this forum saying they don't want women to have an abortion option, yet 99% don't want the government to tell them whether or not they have the right own/carry a firearm etc. Double standard? I don't think it is the government's job to dictate what women can, or cannot do with their bodies. Good point JMO! |
|
|
|
Post by Mink on Sept 3, 2008 23:23:09 GMT -5
Len:
" I am surprised that you make two contradictory statements! "She doesn't believe in sex education in schools, but rather abstinence". I am fairly certain that to promote abstinence, one must teach sex ed! First, why should a government worker teach sex ed, I'll never know. No wonder the population count is diminishing! Second, it's not the role of gov't to do that. Third, and for real, the real tone of the choice in abstinence is to give detailed information WITH the conclusion that abstinence is best. Current tone is "most WILL do it, so these are the things to watch out for", which is a self-full filling attitude. Demographics show that folks under 20 have the fastest rate of increase in STDs in our country, and sex ed has been taught for longer than that. If you've ever raised teens then you know attitude is about all of it!"
__________________________________________
Len, it has been in the news that Palin is against sex education in schools and promotes abstinence. I have and still am raising teens. It is a hugh responsibility and should be taken seriously.
|
|
|
|
Post by JustMyOpinion on Sept 4, 2008 20:21:32 GMT -5
YIKES! The Big Dog is nipping at my heels... First of all, the age of 16 for consent?! WOW! Impressive, such high standards the young in Alaska. Palin should advocate sex education and it should've started with her own daughter, and now unfortunately she is an example of what NOT to do. I actually read that you are Pro Choice in a recent post, and I never referenced your name in this thread. Jumpy are we? If Roe vs Wade is reversed how easy will it be for women to get an abortion? I guess we'll see the increased production of metal coat hangers, maybe we should all invest! 
|
|
|
|
Post by The New Guy on Sept 4, 2008 21:19:53 GMT -5
YIKES! The Big Dog is nipping at my heels... First of all, the age of 16 for consent?! WOW! Impressive, such high standards the young in Alaska. Palin should advocate sex education and it should've started with her own daughter, and now unfortunately she is an example of what NOT to do. yeah, those darn hicks up there in alaska! they could never be as sophisticated as we kali-for-nians, right? actually, the age of consent in CA is listed as 18 but when you read the penal code it's 16. doh!!! teenadvice.about.com/library/weekly/qanda/blageofconsentchart.htmwww.ageofconsent.com/california.htmit states that an adult over 21 who engages in intercourse with a minor less than 16 is guilty. it does not cover two 17 year olds which i believe is the case with bristol palin and her beau. the first chart is rather comical considering our progressive canadian friends have set the age of consent at 14! but if you want to be a homosexual male you must wait until you are 18. wow! those canadians really are smart, eh? you are really starting to embarass yourself here. how many coat hanger abortions have you EVER been aware of? really. and with the great sex education that you tout, there would be no need for abortions, right? when will you, mink, or santurelle dredge up the guts to answer these questions: does anyone know if her daughter DID NOT have sex ed in school?
what percentage of pregnant teens DID have sex ed in school? |
|
