# Sarah Palin is scaring the bejeesus out of Floridians



## Red Dawn (Sep 19, 2008)

I really didn't think mccain would nominate an extremist rightwing, unexperienced christian...

Fascinating article Ben Smith just posted about how undecided Floridians are now moving towards Obama because of Sarah Palin.

 Seems they aren't very thrilled with "ideologues" like Palin. I'm going to guess that part of the reason is a visceral distrust of where the arch-Christian Palin comes down on the question of Jews and issues they care about. Actually, it would be a fascinating question to ask Palin, if she thinks Jews need to be "saved," and whether they're going to hell. In the menatime, let's not forget that the anti-Semitic Pat Buchanan claims that Palin was a big supporter of his presidential campaign. Palin denies it, but then again, she and McCain have been lying every single day since McCain picked her, so we're to believe Palin doesn't have a personal problem with Jews because she, a serial liar, tells us so? Pat Buchanan thinks she's swell, and says she was a big supporter.


Ben Smith's Blog: Florida, long way from Alaska - Politico.com

americablog.com


----------



## necritan (Sep 19, 2008)

Red Dawn said:


> I really didn't think mccain would nominate an extremist rightwing, unexperienced christian...
> 
> Fascinating article Ben Smith just posted about how undecided Floridians are now moving towards Obama because of Sarah Palin.
> 
> ...



You know......you should shorten that up and just get to the point.....like this

"I hate Christians......and I spread bullshit rumors."

See how easy that was.


----------



## Chris (Sep 19, 2008)

necritan said:


> You know......you should shorten that up and just get to the point.....like this
> 
> "I hate Christians......and I spread bullshit rumors."
> 
> See how easy that was.



Palin's extremist views have nothing to do with Christianity.


----------



## necritan (Sep 19, 2008)

Chris said:


> Palin's extremist views have nothing to do with Christianity.



I was in reference to Dawns extremist views....not Palin's.


----------



## Caligirl (Sep 19, 2008)

The focus group had dems, republicans, and unaffiliated:



> Of the 11 undecided voters participating in the discussion one recent evening at the Times &#8212; four Republicans, five Democrats, and two registered to no party &#8212; only two Republican men applauded the selection of Palin.
> 
> Nobody had finalized a choice, but seven of the panelists said that McCain's running mate selection had made them more likely to vote for Obama, and in several cases much more likely.


----------



## oreo (Sep 19, 2008)

What's extremist about Sarah Palin?  She's pro-life?  The majority of women in this country are pro-life!   If you're talking about the rumors of what she's not--you're obviously not watching any interviews of her.

No she didn't burn books, yes she believes in contraception--she wants evolution taught in schools.

So tell me, what in the world is extremist about her?

BTW--you can get a detailed interview she just did on FOX news--that details some of these *nonsense rumors * spread around about her--"that are not true".


----------



## Charles_Main (Sep 19, 2008)

Feminists hate Palin because she is not pro abortion rights. She wants some reasonable limits on Abortion.


----------



## Dirt McGirt (Sep 19, 2008)

Charles_Main said:


> Feminists hate Palin because she is not pro abortion rights. She wants some reasonable limits on Abortion.



I disagree. Stating that she would have her own daughter carry her baby to term if she were raped and became pregnant is far from unreasonable, even for the staunchest conservative.

"The candidates were pressed on their stances on abortion and were even asked what they would do if their own daughters were raped and became pregnant.

Palin said she would support abortion only if the mother's life was in danger. When it came to her daughter, she said, "I would choose life.""
adn.com | governor race : All three candidates support gas line lawsuit


----------



## Modbert (Sep 19, 2008)

Charles_Main said:


> Feminists hate Palin because she is not pro abortion rights. She wants some reasonable limits on Abortion.



Reasonable limits?

She only wants Abortion if it threatens the mother's life.

But it's reasonable to not allow a pregnant woman to get a abortion if she gets pregnant by rape and or incest?

Fuckin


----------



## Charles_Main (Sep 19, 2008)

Dirt McGirt said:


> I disagree. Stating that she would have her own daughter carry her baby to term if she were raped and became pregnant is far from unreasonable, even for the staunchest conservative.
> 
> "The candidates were pressed on their stances on abortion and were even asked what they would do if their own daughters were raped and became pregnant.
> 
> ...



When I say reasonable limits I mean like not letting the same slut get 3 abortions in 4 years, or not allowing late term abortions.

the Extreme pro choice crowd will not stand for someone who dares talk about limitations on Abortion.

They want to be able to stab a needle into an infants skull as it crowns and suck it's brains out, and they will destroy anyone who stands in their way.


----------



## Dirt McGirt (Sep 19, 2008)

Charles_Main said:


> When I say reasonable limits I mean like not letting the same slut get 3 abortions in 4 years, or not allowing late term abortions.
> 
> the Extreme pro choice crowd will not stand for someone who dares talk about limitations on Abortion.
> 
> They want to be able to stab a needle into an infants skull as it crowns and suck it's brains out, and they will destroy anyone who stands in their way.



^ Futile attempt at dodge and spin.


----------



## frazzledgear (Sep 19, 2008)

Red Dawn said:


> I really didn't think mccain would nominate an extremist rightwing, unexperienced christian...
> 
> Fascinating article Ben Smith just posted about how undecided Floridians are now moving towards Obama because of Sarah Palin.
> 
> ...



You mean Floridians might actually be falling for the liberal crap that Palin is some kind of rightwing extremist Christian whacko who wants to convert all Jews?  OMG!  LOL  I guess that sure explains why they are so "scared" that the most recent poll has him 7 points ahead of Obama.

Sorry, but Palin has an Israeli flag in her office -maybe because many Christian churches actually believe in Israel's right to exist, are some of the strongest pro-Israel Americans there are and that Jews are the brothers of Christians without whom Christianity wouldn't even exist.  She isn't the least bit interested in converting Jews and in fact said she does not wear her religious faith on her sleeve and does not shove her personal faith in anyone's face.  The fact you know she IS religious, doesn't mean she must be a whacko about it then.

You might be interested to know that her father was a public high school science teacher.  She not only was taught evolution herself, she thinks it is entirely appropriate to teach in public schools and has never once even suggested that Creationism should be.  Not when a member of the PTA, not when a city councilwoman, not when mayor, not when governor and not as VP candidate.  The only thing she has ever said even remotely touching on it was that if the subject were to be debated in school, students and teachers must show respect for any individual religious beliefs a student may have.  Hardly a mindboggling statement of radical conservatism extremism there.

She did not support Buchanan -http://explorations.chasrmartin.com/2008/09/06/palin-rumors/  Its number 17.  She was on the board of Steve Forbes' campaign in Alaska and supported Forbes, not Buchanan.  

But why let reality get in the way.  Liberal motto is "if the truth doesn't serve our agenda, then go with the lie".


----------



## Dirt McGirt (Sep 19, 2008)

frazzledgear said:


> She not only was taught evolution herself, she thinks it is entirely appropriate to teach in public schools and *has never once even suggested that Creationism should be.*


Yes she has. 

"The volatile issue of teaching creation science in public schools popped up in the Alaska governor's race this week when Republican Sarah Palin said she thinks creationism should be taught alongside evolution in the state's public classrooms.

Palin was answering a question from the moderator near the conclusion of Wednesday night's televised debate on KAKM Channel 7 when she said, "Teach both. You know, don't be afraid of information. Healthy debate is so important, and it's so valuable in our schools. I am a proponent of teaching both."
adn.com | elections : 'Creation science' enters the race


Personally, I agree with her statement though.


----------



## frazzledgear (Sep 20, 2008)

Dirt McGirt said:


> Yes she has.
> 
> "The volatile issue of teaching creation science in public schools popped up in the Alaska governor's race this week when Republican Sarah Palin said she thinks creationism should be taught alongside evolution in the state's public classrooms.
> 
> ...



I stand corrected.  While I agree with her statement about no need to be afraid of more information -I disagree that creationism should be taught as part of a science class.  It isn't presented as a teachable scientific theory.  But since so many people interchange creationism with intelligent design, I seriously doubt she means to teach the Bible as if its a science book when it was never intended to be used as one.    

However, I do think that the theory of intelligent design IS supportable to be taught in a science class and it is NOT creationism, does not rule out the role evolution may play either.  The theory of evolution is unlike all other scientific theories.  Scientific theories are intended to explain a very specific phenomenon and nothing else.  The theory of evolution tries to explain EVERY phenomenon and it doesn't -and it can't.  The theory of intelligent design does not attempt to explain every phenomenon either, but just very specific ones only, while admitting it is not the answer to many other phenomena.

I believe in teaching kids all the different theories that scientists themselves are still struggling with right now, including evolution but also letting them know where scientists themselves think its falls short -which is why other theories are being actively researched.  Instead public schools are teaching kids to believe this is a settled, proven "fact", no more questions remain, anyone who doesn't agree that its all evolution and Darwin got it perfectly correct right out of the gate is an idiot or religious whacko idiot.  In fact no scientist has ever gotten it totally correct right out of the gate and this theory is badly flawed, there are numerous undeniable scientific facts that totally contradict some of the major parts of the theory - and scientists know it.  Which is why they are working on OTHER theories right now.  If Darwin were alive today, he'd be the first to admit he got a lot of it wrong after all.

Liberals act like this is an "either-or" thing.  As if no other possibilities exist except evolution and the Biblical story -nothing else.  The fact that evolution is badly flawed only means we didn't get it totally correct after all and it needs more research.  It sure doesn't mean it must be creationism as described in the Bible when the Bible is not a science book intended to explain how our natural world works.  Why are liberals so afraid to let public school kids know what all these other theories are that scientists are working on?  

But I do not think they should be taught in a science class what religious doctrine ministers and congregations are struggling with.


----------



## Red Dawn (Sep 20, 2008)

Dirt McGirt said:


> I disagree. Stating that she would have her own daughter carry her baby to term if she were raped and became pregnant is far from unreasonable, even for the staunchest conservative.
> 
> "The candidates were pressed on their stances on abortion and were even asked what they would do if their own daughters were raped and became pregnant.
> 
> ...




Exactly. 

Extremist.   For christ sakes, she was a Pentacostal.   That's as extreme "christian" as it gets. 

She's starting to scare some Floridians, and other moderates. 

No one is buying the _"Please believe us, she's really a reasonable moderate!"_ spin from the Bush voters on this thread.


----------



## sealybobo (Sep 20, 2008)

Red Dawn said:


> I really didn't think mccain would nominate an extremist rightwing, unexperienced christian...
> 
> Fascinating article Ben Smith just posted about how undecided Floridians are now moving towards Obama because of Sarah Palin.
> 
> ...



Just like McCain gets Bush's endorsement.  If you don't like Bush, why vote for the person he endorses?

America would not elect another religious not, so what did the gop do?  They nominated a 70 yr old with Melanoma and snuck in a woman who's even more extreme than Bush.

And I bet Floridians don't like her and Todd Palin obstructing justice in Troopergate.  The investigation was unanamously approved 14 to 0 by Alaskan legislature, and it was bi partisan, so now how do they have the balls to say its about politics?  In other words, it won't help her chances to win in november.

Hopefully people vote against her for not cooperating.  She's acting a lot like Chaney.  Refusing to testify, contempt of court, deleting emails.  America can't afford 4 yrs of this.  Palin should already be impeached.  lol


----------



## Orange_Juice (Sep 20, 2008)

frazzledgear said:


> You mean Floridians might actually be falling for the liberal crap that Palin is some kind of rightwing extremist Christian whacko who wants to convert all Jews?  OMG!  LOL  I guess that sure explains why they are so "scared" that the most recent poll has him 7 points ahead of Obama.
> 
> Sorry, but Palin has an Israeli flag in her office -maybe because many Christian churches actually believe in Israel's right to exist, are some of the strongest pro-Israel Americans there are and that Jews are the brothers of Christians without whom Christianity wouldn't even exist.  She isn't the least bit interested in converting Jews and in fact said she does not wear her religious faith on her sleeve and does not shove her personal faith in anyone's face.  The fact you know she IS religious, doesn't mean she must be a whacko about it then.
> 
> ...



Yes, Americans have given her a look and decided she is someone they don't want in the White House.


----------



## WillowTree (Sep 20, 2008)

I just read the title and without reading a single word of the leftist dribble am just laughing my ass off.


----------



## xsited1 (Sep 20, 2008)

Floridians don't even know how to vote.  They scare easily.


----------



## WillowTree (Sep 20, 2008)

xsited1 said:


> Floridians don't even know how to vote.  They scare easily.





you say this of course knowing they are mostly transplants from New York and New Jersey!


----------



## jillian (Sep 20, 2008)

WillowTree said:


> you say this of course knowing they are mostly transplants from New York and New Jersey!



New York and New Jersey are the largest "sending states" to Florida. But certainly Florida isn't mostly composed of NY'ers and NJ'ians.. 

Surely you aren't implying anything by your comment, are you?


----------



## dilloduck (Sep 20, 2008)

jillian said:


> New York and New Jersey are the largest "sending states" to Florida. But certainly Florida isn't mostly composed of NY'ers and NJ'ians..
> 
> Surely you aren't implying anything by your comment, are you?



You aren't being hyper-defensive, are you ?


----------



## jillian (Sep 20, 2008)

dilloduck said:


> You aren't being hyper-defensive, are you ?



are you?

besides, I already know YOUR opinions. I simply asked her to clarify her statement. S'matter, you know what she means?


----------



## midcan5 (Sep 20, 2008)

The selection of Palin astounds me. I realize she is an offering to the far right but she is so far out there it is plain scary. Goldwater lost big because he was perceived as a little wacky, now let time pass and an even wackier person is seen as normal. Is the water spiked or what?

What's the Difference Between Palin and Muslim Fundamentalists? Lipstick | CommonDreams.org

"John McCain announced that he was running for president to confront the "transcendent challenge" of the 21st century, "radical Islamic extremism," contrasting it with "stability, tolerance and democracy." But the values of his handpicked running mate, Sarah Palin, more resemble those of Muslim fundamentalists than they do those of the Founding Fathers. On censorship, the teaching of creationism in schools, reproductive rights, attributing government policy to God's will and climate change, Palin agrees with Hamas and Saudi Arabia rather than supporting tolerance and democratic precepts. What is the difference between Palin and a Muslim fundamentalist? Lipstick."


----------



## Red Dawn (Sep 20, 2008)

WillowTree said:


> you say this of course knowing they are mostly transplants from New York and New Jersey!





> Originally Posted by xsited1
> 
> Floridians don't even know how to vote. They scare easily.




I don't think old people and jewish people from new york scare that easily.  Not compared to southern, conservative nuts. 

Let me ask you: are you a member of the party that thought Saddam Hussien was a grave and urgent threat to the United States, armed to the teeth with WMD that his socialist secular ass was willing to pass on to muslim jihaddists?  Are you a member of the conservative wing of the republican party who is in cyberspace daily wringing your hands about a minor border conflict in Georgia, and beating the war drums for war with Russia, Venezuela, Iran, etc, etc, etc???


----------



## Orange_Juice (Sep 20, 2008)

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/09/20/opinion/20blow.html?th&emc=th



> It turns out that the Republican enthusiasm for Sarah Palin is just as superficial as she is. They were so eager for someone to cheer for (because they really dont like you) that they dove face first into the Palin mirage. But, on the issues, even they worry about her.
> 
> In a New York Times/CBS News poll conducted this week 77 percent of Republicans said that they had a favorable opinion of Palin. But when asked what specifically they liked about her, their top five reasons were that she was honest, tough, caring, outspoken and fresh-faced. Sounds like a talk-show host, not a vice president. (By the way, her intelligence was in a three-way tie for eighth place, right behind I just like her.)
> 
> ...


----------



## WillowTree (Sep 20, 2008)

jillian said:


> New York and New Jersey are the largest "sending states" to Florida. But certainly Florida isn't mostly composed of NY'ers and NJ'ians..
> 
> Surely you aren't implying anything by your comment, are you?







 xsited1  
Registered User   Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Little Rock, AR
Posts: 46 
Rep Power: 1 


Floridians don't even know how to vote. They scare easily. 




very telling  that you question what I mean but not what the ^^^ means isn't it? I think you know. Don't you?


----------



## jillian (Sep 20, 2008)

WillowTree said:


> xsited1
> Registered User   Join Date: Sep 2008
> Location: Little Rock, AR
> Posts: 46
> ...



No. He was referring to FL2000 and the hanging chads and people who were intimidated out of voting by police.

You?


----------



## Missourian (Sep 20, 2008)

Red Dawn said:


> I don't think old people and jewish people from new york scare that easily.  Not compared to southern, conservative nuts.
> 
> Let me ask you: are you a member of the party that thought Saddam Hussien was a grave and urgent threat to the United States, armed to the teeth with WMD that his socialist secular ass was willing to pass on to muslim jihaddists?  Are you a member of the conservative wing of the republican party who is in cyberspace daily wringing your hands about a minor border conflict in Georgia, and beating the war drums for war with Russia, Venezuela, Iran, etc, etc, etc???




Sorry to burst your bubble Red, but there would be no conflict in Georgia if the Russians thought we had any backbone.

As for WMD's, you'll have to add a lot of Dem's to your list of hand-wringers:



> "The community of nations may see more and more of the very kind of threat Iraq poses now: a rogue state with weapons of mass destruction, ready to use them or provide them to terrorists. If we fail to respond today, Saddam and all those who would follow in his footsteps will be emboldened tomorrow." -- *President Bill Clinton *in 1998






> "I am absolutely convinced that there are weapons...I saw evidence back in 1998 when we would see the inspectors being barred from gaining entry into a warehouse for three hours with trucks rolling up and then moving those trucks out." -- *Clinton's Secretary of Defense William Cohen in April of 2003 *






> "Iraq does pose a serious threat to the stability of the Persian Gulf and we should organize an international coalition to eliminate his access to weapons of mass destruction. Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to completely deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power." -- *Vice President and Democrat Presidential Nominee (2000), Al Gore*, 2002






> "There's no question that Saddam Hussein is a threat... Yes, he has chemical and biological weapons. He's had those for a long time. But the United States right now is on a very much different defensive posture than we were before September 11th of 2001... He is, as far as we know, actively pursuing nuclear capabilities, though he doesn't have nuclear warheads yet. If he were to acquire nuclear weapons, I think our friends in the region would face greatly increased risks as would we." -- *Democrat Vice Presidential Nominee (2000), General Wesley Clark *on September 26, 2002






> "The threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real, but as I said, it is not new. It has been with us since the end of that war, and particularly in the last 4 years we know after Operation Desert Fox failed to force him to reaccept them, that he has continued to build those weapons. He has had a free hand for 4 years to reconstitute these weapons, allowing the world, during the interval, to lose the focus we had on weapons of mass destruction and the issue of proliferation." -- *Democrat Presidential Nominee (2004), Senator John Kerry*, October 9, 2002






> "Saddam Hussein's regime represents a grave threat to America and our allies, including our vital ally, Israel. For more than two decades, Saddam Hussein has sought weapons of mass destruction through every available means. We know that he has chemical and biological weapons. He has already used them against his neighbors and his own people, and is trying to build more. We know that he is doing everything he can to build nuclear weapons, and we know that each day he gets closer to achieving that goal." -- *Democrat Vice Presidential Nominee (2004) John Edwards*, Oct 10, 2002






> "As a member of the House Intelligence Committee, I am keenly aware that the proliferation of chemical and biological weapons is an issue of grave importance to all nations. Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process." -- *Democrat Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi*, December 16, 1998






> "Iraq made commitments after the Gulf War to completely dismantle all weapons of mass destruction, and unfortunately, Iraq has not lived up to its agreement." -- *Barbara Boxer*, November 8, 2002





> "The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October of 1998. We are confident that Saddam Hussein retained some stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons, and that he has since embarked on a crash course to build up his chemical and biological warfare capability. Intelligence reports also indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons, but has not yet achieved nuclear capability." -- *Robert Byrd*, October 2002




And the list goes on and on. 

Link here.

Snopes confirmation if you don't like the first site.


----------



## dilloduck (Sep 20, 2008)

WillowTree said:


> xsited1
> Registered User   Join Date: Sep 2008
> Location: Little Rock, AR
> Posts: 46
> ...



Of course it is --we always have to be on guard for anything that can be remotely construed as anti-semitism.


----------



## rayboyusmc (Sep 20, 2008)

> When I say reasonable limits I mean like not letting the same slut get 3 abortions in 4 years, or not allowing late term abortions.



Do you know this slut?  Is she related to Reagan's Welfare Queen?


No, not everyone who criticizes Sarah, hates Christians, or even some of the fake Christians.


----------



## Richard-H (Sep 20, 2008)

Sarah Palin is a very nice Lady who has a right to hold her own opinions. 

Unfortunately for the Republicans, the American people expect that Vice-Presidential candidates base their opinions on a strong knowledge of the issues and deep consideration of all factors. Sarah Palin fails in this.

I would like to poll all female supporters with the following questions:

1. Do you agree with at least most of Sarah Palin's political opinions and positions?

2. Do you feel that you identify in many ways with Sarah Palin as a person?

3. Do you believe that you yourself are qualified to be President of the United States?


----------



## midcan5 (Sep 20, 2008)

Missourian said:


> Sorry to burst your bubble Red, but there would be no conflict in Georgia if the Russians thought we had any backbone.
> 
> As for WMD's, you'll have to add a lot of Dem's to your list of hand-wringers:



Hmm, so we have no backbone, you may be right but for the wrong reasons, 911 demonstrated what fear can do and how it can remove backbone as without that fear Iraq would never have happened. As far as Russia goes, they are doing what Russia does, you recall Chechnya don't you? And Kennedy stood up to them, so stay in your echo chamber, but realize you haven't a clue.


----------



## Silence (Sep 20, 2008)

oreo said:


> What's extremist about Sarah Palin?  She's pro-life?  The majority of women in this country are pro-life!   If you're talking about the rumors of what she's not--you're obviously not watching any interviews of her.



actually, I think stastics show that the majority of women in this country are pro-choice.  Many, like me, would have no problem limiting abortion in some respect but voting history would indicate that there are far more pro-choice Americans than pro-life.  



> No she didn't burn books, yes she believes in contraception--she wants evolution taught in schools.



she didn't want to burn books, she wanted to know the policy if she wanted to ban them.. The citizens of her community fought back and she dropped it.  show me where she favors contraceptives?  and I've seen her say she wants creationaism taught in school along with evolution but explain to me how you teach creationism in school when that is based on faith and not on science... 



> So tell me, what in the world is extremist about her?



extremists in her view that abortion only in the case of life of the mother, not in the case of rape or incest...

she believes, according to her own words that God sends our military out on his "plan"

she believes that women who have been raped should pay for their own rape kits

she believes that hiring your childhood friend cuz they liked cows is a good idea

she believes that her staff and/or her husband making 24 phones calls inquiring about why Mike Wooten was still a trooper is okay and not an abuse of power

she believes that it's okay to take federal money but then talk about the abuse of earmarks

she believes that it's okay to lie about selling the plane for a profit but actually selling it for a loss

she believes that it's okay to preach abstinence only education when that clearly didn't work for her own family

she believes that the pastor mutah (spelling?) laid his hands on her and she become governor

she believes that she is being attacked because people are questioning her record and her actions as mayor and governor.  



> BTW--you can get a detailed interview she just did on FOX news--that details some of these *nonsense rumors * spread around about her--"that are not true".



as for the Fox interview...  they talked about Obama more than they talked about her experience and policy plans.


----------



## Caligirl (Sep 20, 2008)

Richard-H said:


> Sarah Palin is a very nice Lady who has a right to hold her own opinions.
> 
> Unfortunately for the Republicans, the American people expect that Vice-Presidential candidates base their opinions on a strong knowledge of the issues and deep consideration of all factors. Sarah Palin fails in this.
> 
> ...




I agree with very few of her positions, although I am pro-gun and small government, and I want there to be fewer abortions (but do not wish to tell you that you must feel the same or else be a criminal, gets to small govt imo). 

I feel I identify with her in that we are similar in age and raising children.

I am not qualified to be in the white house.


----------



## Caligirl (Sep 20, 2008)

Missourian said:


> Sorry to burst your bubble Red, but there would be no conflict in Georgia if the Russians thought we had any backbone.



I am still curious if the Georgian thing was encouraged by people in Washington in order to prop up McCain as Putin has said.


----------



## dilloduck (Sep 20, 2008)

Caligirl said:


> I am still curious if the Georgian thing was encouraged by people in Washington in order to prop up McCain as Putin has said.



You would believe Putin , wouldn't ya----commie pinko ~


----------



## Silence (Sep 20, 2008)

I would like to poll all female supporters with the following questions:

1. Do you agree with at least most of Sarah Palin's political opinions and positions? *no, I don't agree with her political opinions or positions*

2. Do you feel that you identify in many ways with Sarah Palin as a person? *yes, I can indentify with her as a person.  She seems like a very nice lady who deeply believes in her convictions*

3. Do you believe that you yourself are qualified to be President of the United States? *no, I am not qualified to be President of the United States but I am probably as qualified as she is *


----------



## Richard-H (Sep 20, 2008)

Missourian said:


> Sorry to burst your bubble Red, but there would be no conflict in Georgia if the Russians thought we had any backbone.
> .



If you think that there is or has been anytime that Russia has been intimidated by us in their own backyard, you are out of your mind!


----------



## dilloduck (Sep 20, 2008)

Richard-H said:


> If you think that there is or has been anytime that Russia has been intimidated by us in their own backyard, you are out of your mind!



So those missles un Poland don't bother then a bit ? How about our nukes in Turkey ?


----------



## Richard-H (Sep 20, 2008)

Caligirl said:


> I am still curious if the Georgian thing was encouraged by people in Washington in order to prop up McCain as Putin has said.



It does seem incredible that the Georgians would launch an attack against South Ossetia knowing that the Russians had a major army stationed at the border as a deterent against such an attack. I can only figured one of the following:

1. The Georgians believed that Putin is an obsolute dictator and with him in Bejing no one in Moscow would have the balls to order an invasion of Georgia.

2. The Georgians and their American advisors believed that the Georgian Army was well trained & supplied and could either stop or slow down a Russian attack to the point of forcing a Russian withdrawl. They were very badly mistaken.

3. The Georgian free liberaterian economy was a gross failure and the governement was bound to be kicked out in the next election, so they hoped that a war with Russia would distract their own people and get them to vote the free liberaterians back in as an act of patriotism.

4. The Georgians decided to destroy Georgia by aggrevating a full Russian conquest of Georgia, which would help their buddy, John McCain, while the Georgian millionaire spent the rest of their lives posing as patriots in exile.

Probably a combination of all of the above.

I also don't know why we should care about Georgia:

1. The Russians created Georgia in the early 1800s by running the Persians out.

2. The only thing that Georgia has ever given the world is: Joseph Stalin

3. Georgia started this war in violation of a 1991 treaty. The Russians end it.


----------



## Richard-H (Sep 20, 2008)

Caligirl said:


> I agree with very few of her positions, although I am pro-gun and small government, and I want there to be fewer abortions (but do not wish to tell you that you must feel the same or else be a criminal, gets to small govt imo).
> 
> I feel I identify with her in that we are similar in age and raising children.
> 
> I am not qualified to be in the white house.



Would you call yourself a Palin supporter?


----------



## Richard-H (Sep 20, 2008)

dilloduck said:


> So those missles un Poland don't bother then a bit ? How about our nukes in Turkey ?



Russia had an equal or better capability to destroy us as we do them. Their missile subs in the Atlantic & Pacific are at least as threatening to us as our missiles in Turkey & Poland are to them.

If they were intimidated by the misiles in Turkey, they never would have attacked Georgia.


----------



## WillowTree (Sep 20, 2008)

jillian said:


> No. He was referring to FL2000 and the hanging chads and people who were intimidated out of voting by police.
> 
> You?






[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NzlG28B-R8Y]YouTube - Twilight Zone intro.[/ame]


----------



## jillian (Sep 20, 2008)

oreo said:


> What's extremist about Sarah Palin?  She's pro-life?  The majority of women in this country are pro-life!   If you're talking about the rumors of what she's not--you're obviously not watching any interviews of her.



If you're actually watching the interviews, I'm not sure how you think she isn't what people KNOW she is.

No. The majority of WOMEN in this country are pro choice. There are some variations in terms of how far they go in that regard. The majority of anti-choice activists are men.



> No she didn't burn books, yes she believes in contraception--she wants evolution taught in schools.



No one said she wants to burn books. She inquired as to how to ban them from the Wasilla library and then tried to fire the librarian for telling her that she wouldn't take kindly to banning books and neither would the ACLU. 

Yes she wants evolution taught in school, ALONG WITH CREATIONISM... you left out that part. Creationism is Christian dogma... not science and doesn't belong in any school. 



> So tell me, what in the world is extremist about her?
> 
> BTW--you can get a detailed interview she just did on FOX news--that details some of these *nonsense rumors * spread around about her--"that are not true".



Who says they're not true?


----------



## jillian (Sep 20, 2008)

WillowTree said:


> YouTube - Twilight Zone intro.



S'matter, honey, bugs you when you get called on your garbage? Come on, kiddo, I'm still waiting for you to clarify your point if, in fact, you have one.

Unless of course Dillo wants to answer for you again.


----------



## WillowTree (Sep 20, 2008)

You don't really want me to go dig up the Democrats speechs who said exactly that doya. Well doya huh? About the immediate threat from Saddam???


oh shitsky!! rich.. I like the twilight zone music. it applies in so many cases.


----------



## WillowTree (Sep 20, 2008)

Oh,, and btw. about 2000, get over it.. or take it to the supreme court.


----------



## jillian (Sep 20, 2008)

WillowTree said:


> You don't really want me to go dig up the Democrats speechs who said exactly that doya. Well doya huh? About the immediate threat from Saddam???
> 
> 
> oh shitsky!! rich.. I like the twilight zone music. it applies in so many cases.



you sound really unhinged...

I realize comprehension is totally beyond your ken, but you sound really freaky.


----------



## WillowTree (Sep 20, 2008)

jillian said:


> you sound really unhinged...
> 
> I realize comprehension is totally beyond your ken, but you sound really freaky.



so ya want some more twilight zone???


----------



## Ravi (Sep 20, 2008)

As a Floridian, I will admit, Palin scares the hell out of me. Luckily, people are starting to see how she has no regard for the rule of law and is actually an idiot.


----------



## WillowTree (Sep 20, 2008)

Ravi said:


> As a Floridian, I will admit, Palin scares the hell out of me. Luckily, people are starting to see how she has no regard for the rule of law and is actually an idiot.



you're a liberal, everything Republican scares the hell out of you.


----------



## Ravi (Sep 20, 2008)

WillowTree said:


> you're a liberal, everything Republican scares the hell out of you.


Yes, that is very true. And if you had half a brain, everything Republican would scare the hell out of you.

Enjoy our new communist government.


----------



## Navy1960 (Sep 20, 2008)

I can tell you, from the standpoint of having many many relatives in South Fl. that a blanket statement that Obama is  somehow going to win Fl. is  at least to me  quite amusing. I think if Obama doesn't get down to Miami and repair some of the damage he did when he spoke of his willingness to sit down with "Castro"  He has not made many friends there.  His exercise in Fl. is a futile one and his money and resources would be better spent in trying to win Colorado or Va. where in my opinion he has a better chance of winning.


----------



## WillowTree (Sep 20, 2008)

Ravi said:


> Yes, that is very true. And if you had half a brain, everything Republican would scare the hell out of you.
> 
> Enjoy our new communist government.






well, I don't have half a brain, I am stuck with what I got..


----------



## Charles_Main (Sep 20, 2008)

Ravi said:


> Yes, that is very true. And if you had half a brain, everything Republican would scare the hell out of you.
> 
> Enjoy our new communist government.



Typical of elitist Liberals. Anyone who does not agree with me has no brain.

You are just one step away from the Soviets, soon you will be advocating the jailing of anyone who does not agree with you I think.


----------



## jillian (Sep 20, 2008)

Ravi said:


> Yes, that is very true. And if you had half a brain, everything Republican would scare the hell out of you.
> 
> Enjoy our new communist government.



Funny, I've never voted anything but repub for mayor here. Think she's ever voted for a dem?

I'm figuring no... 

It is really interesting though that we're suddenly a socialist nation, but it's ok to be that to save banks, but not give health insurance to people. 

We own AIG now, right? Maybe we can get them to provide health coverage.


----------



## WillowTree (Sep 20, 2008)

Charles_Main said:


> Typical of elitist Liberals. Anyone who does not agree with me has no brain.
> 
> You are just one step away from the Soviets, soon you will be advocating the jailing of anyone who does not agree with you I think.






no, I really really think she generously allowed me half a brain, or did I miscount my brains she alloted to me?? Should I go check at KOS?


----------



## Navy1960 (Sep 20, 2008)

Do you know the one thing about communism that many people don't seem to understand? I always am amused by this too, I constantly see some people say well because you think this way or that your somehow "stupid" or not "intelligent", and at the same time they defend communism and radical socialism. What's half amusing about that is that when you look back at history and all the communist purges or revolutions who are the first people executed after the revolution? The so-called "smart people" , so then what will that leave? the very same people the radical socialists are calling dumb.  just a thought.


----------



## jillian (Sep 20, 2008)

Charles_Main said:


> Typical of elitist Liberals. Anyone who does not agree with me has no brain.
> 
> You are just one step away from the Soviets, soon you will be advocating the jailing of anyone who does not agree with you I think.



Have you read your posts lately??? Only someone who agrees with YOU doesn't want to destroy the country, eh?

Talk about elitist....


----------



## Ravi (Sep 20, 2008)

Amazing how my words are taken out of context and twisted.

If you guys still support what the Republican policy has led to, so be it.


----------



## Valerie (Sep 20, 2008)

jillian said:


> It is really interesting though that we're suddenly a socialist nation, but it's ok to be that to save banks, but not give health insurance to people.
> 
> We own AIG now, right? Maybe we can get them to provide health coverage.



What a great idea!


----------



## Charles_Main (Sep 20, 2008)

jillian said:


> Have you read your posts lately??? Only someone who agrees with YOU doesn't want to destroy the country, eh?
> 
> Talk about elitist....



I never claimed you want to destroy the country Jillian, I never even said Obama wants to. I simply think his policies will. He means well, He is just wrong. IMO anyways.


----------



## Charles_Main (Sep 20, 2008)

Ravi said:


> Amazing how my words are taken out of context and twisted.
> 
> If you guys still support what the Republican policy has led to, so be it.



It is what Bush has lead to that is the problem. If  you have not noticed he has strayed a long way away from conservative values. At least when spending is concerned. I am betting on McCain to return us to more fiscal conservative ways. I could be wrong about him, but I am damn sure Obama will not do it.


----------



## sealybobo (Sep 20, 2008)

Ravi said:


> As a Floridian, I will admit, Palin scares the hell out of me. Luckily, people are starting to see how she has no regard for the rule of law and is actually an idiot.



If only the liberal press disected bush like this in 1999.

The drinking
The illegal abortion he got a woman before they were legal.
The going awol.
The business failures.
How little he did as gov of texas.

Get this.  He is a fucking socialist!

Bush funded the Texas Ranger stadium.  Tax payers funded that stadium.  Then bush sold it for a profit.  He put very little down.  They used him for his name and influence and he was building his resume.

Gw bush is the perfect example why the rich should pay more in taxes.  He didn't earn a penny.  He was born into wealth.  In fact, it is amazing how far aname can take you.

People forgot that his father was a horrble president.  You'd have thought he would have learned from his father but he is even more right wing neo con than his father.  In fact, I now miss his father.  lol


----------



## sealybobo (Sep 20, 2008)

Charles_Main said:


> I never claimed you want to destroy the country Jillian, I never even said Obama wants to. I simply think his policies will. He means well, He is just wrong. IMO anyways.



How Obama and a democratic government will be different and make our lives better:

1. Stop spending in iraq.
2. Close loopholes that gave foreign companies $500 billion in tax breaks
3. Take away tax subsodize to oil companies and energy companies and stop them from over speculating and gouging us.
4. End the unfair tax breaks to the rich.
5. Stop giving tax breaks to companies that go overseas.
6. Spend half as much on defense because half is fraud and theft or buddy sweetheart deals.
7. Actually take some of iraqs oil revenue.  Chaney said iraq oil would pay for the war.  He lied.  Exxon profits and we pay the bills.

Charles, I just showed you how obama will pay for your tax break and balance his budget.  These are the key things the republicans did that ruined our economy.

How can you not see it?  The democrats are better at every economic indicator.  inflation, spending, debt, unemployment, consumer confidence, deficits, stock market.  You have run out of bullshit.  It is over, minus another stolen election, bush postponing the election or an october surprise.


----------



## Red Dawn (Sep 20, 2008)

Charles_Main said:


> It is what Bush has lead to that is the problem. If  you have not noticed he has strayed a long way away from conservative values. At least when spending is concerned. I am betting on McCain to return us to more fiscal conservative ways. I could be wrong about him, but I am damn sure Obama will not do it.




c'mondude, nobody is buying that you or any repub got fooled by bush.

bush did _exactly_ what he promised to do, way back in the 2000 campaign.He proemised to cut taxes, mostly on the rich and corporations, he promised to raise spending on the pentagon, medicare, and education, and he promised to have a more pro-business government with more privatization and deregulation, 

that was all out in the open, and that's what he ran on.

you and 99% of republicans knowingly voted for this twice.  McCain and all the other repubs in congress voted with bush 90% of the time.  For 8 years straight.


you can't run away from that now, and pretend you were blind sided.

If you don't like it, you're in the wrong party.  there are other parties


----------



## sealybobo (Sep 20, 2008)

Caligirl said:


> I agree with very few of her positions, although I am pro-gun and small government, and I want there to be fewer abortions (but do not wish to tell you that you must feel the same or else be a criminal, gets to small govt imo).
> 
> I feel I identify with her in that we are similar in age and raising children.
> 
> I am not qualified to be in the white house.



Aren't  you similar in age to obama too then and doesn't he have children?  And everything else you said makes you a democrat.

Despite what the gop says, they grew government, not thedems.

And as for guns, obama is pro gun too.  He's just against illegal guns being flooded into our streets.  Certainly you would like to get guns out of young gang members hands, correct?  Obama is not anti concealed weapons permit or having guns for home protection.  He's from chicago.  Gimme  break.  The nra is one of the biggest lobbyists, just behind the jewish lobby.  Don't buy their bullshit.  Ps.  This is also why lieberman stabbed the dems in the back.  Isreal likes us fighting with their enemies.  imo, he works for israel, not connecticut, or wherever he is from.

The gop voted for lieberman when he ran as a independent.  the republican who ran didn't stand a chance.  I can't wait to get rid of him.  He is a traitor.  To think I voted for him to be VP.  I wonder what gore has to say about him.


----------



## Charles_Main (Sep 20, 2008)

Red Dawn said:


> you can't run away from that now, and pretend you were blind sided.



I never claimed I was fooled or Blind sideded pal. I was, and am well aware of Bushes flaws. Where you go wrong is in thinking that Gore or Kerry would have been less socialist, or spent less than Bush. I was aware of Bushes many flaws, yet saw nowhere else to go. I still do not. I do not see McCain as perfect, But I see Obama as far to far to the left. Simple as that. I am entitled to my opinion despite what some of you like Bobo want. Until you gain enough votes to silence me and bring a true end to Freedom in America, I will continue to exercise my right to have a different opinion than you.

Oh and Bobo don't bother talking to me, Because I will not even read your nonsense anymore.


----------



## WillowTree (Sep 20, 2008)

sealybobo said:


> Aren't  you similar in age to obama too then and doesn't he have children?  And everything else you said makes you a democrat.
> 
> Despite what the gop says, they grew government, not thedems.
> 
> ...







So how many guns exactly did Obama get out of the hands of the gangs in Chicago??? 


Liebermann stabbed the Dems in the back???


I can still see that knife sticking outta Hillary's back.


----------



## WillowTree (Sep 20, 2008)

Gore says and I quote  "Lieberman's farts cause global warming and death to polar bears."


----------



## sealybobo (Sep 20, 2008)

Red Dawn said:


> c'mondude, nobody is buying that you or any repub got fooled by bush.
> 
> bush did _exactly_ what he promised to do, way back in the 2000 campaign.He proemised to cut taxes, mostly on the rich and corporations, he promised to raise spending on the pentagon, medicare, and education, and he promised to have a more pro-business government with more privatization and deregulation,
> 
> ...



And while he never endorsed bush, he would never consider voting for the alternative, even though by economic factors, the democrats are more in line with his beliefs.

The republicans cried that the dems over regulated, yet everyone made money under clinton.  They can't be talking about pelosi and reed because the problem we have now is because of not enough regs.

He can't believe mccain will be fiscally responsible, because neither bush's or reagan had surplus'.  only clinton did.  

Actually, if mccain wins, he'll veto all dem spending, so he might not spend a lot, but he won't fix what is wrong with our infrastructure either.

Basically, I can show you where obama can find an extra $100 billion, and no it won't kill commerce.  That's just what the lying republicans say.  They rule by fear and lies and feed on ignorance.  Just look at charles.


----------



## sealybobo (Sep 20, 2008)

Charles_Main said:


> I never claimed I was fooled or Blind sideded pal. I was, and am well aware of Bushes flaws. Where you go wrong is in thinking that Gore or Kerry would have been less socialist, or spent less than Bush. I was aware of Bushes many flaws, yet saw nowhere else to go. I still do not. I do not see McCain as perfect, But I see Obama as far to far to the left. Simple as that. I am entitled to my opinion despite what some of you like Bobo want. Until you gain enough votes to silence me and bring a true end to Freedom in America, I will continue to exercise my right to have a different opinion than you.
> 
> Oh and Bobo don't bother talking to me, Because I will not even read your nonsense anymore.



1. Our government/economy is a blend of socialism and free trade.  The dems would have regulated more, if that's what you mean by being more socialist.

See clintons spending vs the last 3 republican presidents.

This point will prove you are full of shit.  Do you really believe Kerry would have let Denny Hastert and Tom Delay spend as much as bush did?  lololol

The gop said clinton was far far left.  He wasn't.  If they lied about clinton, maybe obama isn't  that liberal either.  Seems pretty moderate and common sense to me.

And you don't need to talk to me.  These people are handing you your ass.  I predict you end up leaving these boards in shame very soon.  To me you have zero credibility.

I just won't let you spew your disinformation without calling you on it.  I won't stalk you like you di me though.  I'll actually use substance unlike you with your subtle insults.  As if you are smarter than me.  HA!  Wait till the only truck drivers in america are mexican.  If mccain and the gop had their way, you'd already be out of work.  You have what they call a "job americans won't do".  At least not for $9 hr.  Mexicans will!

And companies should be able to hire who they want.  Free trade!  No regulations!  Right?


----------



## sealybobo (Sep 20, 2008)

WillowTree said:


> So how many guns exactly did Obama get out of the hands of the gangs in Chicago???
> 
> 
> I'm just saying.  The gop act like gun regulations mean the democrats are anti gun when that's not true.
> ...


----------



## del (Sep 20, 2008)

sealybobo said:


> If only the liberal press disected bush like this in 1999.
> 
> The drinking
> The illegal abortion he got a woman before they were legal.
> ...



the liberal press!! i've been assured on numerous occasions that it doesn't exist!

sacre bleu!


----------



## Silence (Sep 20, 2008)

Charles_Main said:


> I never claimed I was fooled or Blind sideded pal. I was, and am well aware of Bushes flaws. Where you go wrong is in thinking that Gore or Kerry would have been less socialist, or spent less than Bush. I was aware of Bushes many flaws, yet saw nowhere else to go. I still do not. I do not see McCain as perfect, But I see Obama as far to far to the left. Simple as that. I am entitled to my opinion despite what some of you like Bobo want. Until you gain enough votes to silence me and bring a true end to Freedom in America, I will continue to exercise my right to have a different opinion than you.
> 
> Oh and Bobo don't bother talking to me, Because I will not even read your nonsense anymore.



I am curious Charles, you say you're disappointed with Bush but you support McCain because you HOPE he'll be different.  What gives you any indication that he WILL be different?  He voted with Bush 90% of the time over the last 8 years.  He was for deregulation of the banking system, he's for spending more on the military and less on programs which enrich every day American's lives, he's for making the Bush Tax Cuts PERMANENT...

why not take a chance on Obama, someone different, and see what happens?  We can't really get much worse off than we are now Charles... really...

It's only 4 years... If Bush didn't destroy us in 8 years I don't think Obama can in 4 and if he fucks up he'll be voted out in 2012... seems pretty easy to me...

c'mon...

Take a risk, take a chance, make a change.... break away.. (  Kelly Clarkson song)....


----------



## Ravi (Sep 20, 2008)

Charles_Main said:


> It is what Bush has lead to that is the problem. If  you have not noticed he has strayed a long way away from conservative values. At least when spending is concerned. I am betting on McCain to return us to more fiscal conservative ways. I could be wrong about him, but I am damn sure Obama will not do it.


heh, McCain is no different than Bush. You guys believed in him, once upon a time.

Don't blame me, I'm a Hillary supporter.


----------



## KMAN (Sep 20, 2008)

As many Democrats say she is just a Mom from a small town in Alaska so she should be no threat at all.  

So why is there such a huge effort in trashing her?  I can understand attacking her political views but why is there a need to atack this average Mom's personal life?


----------



## WillowTree (Sep 20, 2008)

KMAN said:


> As many Democrats say she is just a Mom from a small town in Alaska so she should be no threat at all.
> 
> So why is there such a huge effort in trashing her?  I can understand attacking her political views but why is there a need to atack this average Mom's personal life?





republican, white, woman... nuff said


----------



## Richard-H (Sep 20, 2008)

KMAN said:


> As many Democrats say she is just a Mom from a small town in Alaska so she should be no threat at all.
> 
> So why is there such a huge effort in trashing her?  I can understand attacking her political views but why is there a need to atack this average Mom's personal life?



1. When a person runs for office, especially a major federal office, the public has a right and an obligation to scrutinze every aspect of their lives.

2. If Bill Clinton can't enjoy a cigar without the whole world knowing about it, then don't expect Republicans to enjoy a whole lot of privacy.

3. The Republicans judge everyone on their personal life and constantly want to make laws about things that are non of their business.

4. It's fun.

BTW - Sarah Palin is NOT an 'Average Mom' any more.


----------



## Caligirl (Sep 20, 2008)

KMAN said:


> As many Democrats say she is just a Mom from a small town in Alaska so she should be no threat at all.
> 
> So why is there such a huge effort in trashing her?  I can understand attacking her political views but why is there a need to atack this average Mom's personal life?



I don's see people attacking her personal life, except the republicans repeating  (and repeating and repeating) some early stuff about the pregnancy etc and I have no idea where that started. 

But as far as bashing her I do call her out - ON POLITICAL STUFF - on her lack of transparency and daily lying. The things that bother me the most are things like misrepresenting science and trying to hide the emails that showed she was lying, (polar bear study) in order to make a bigger buck. 

She is bad news, not becaue of the personal stuff but because she doesn't care about evidence that shows her views are wrong, at all. Not at all. She'd rather hide the evidence that shows she is wrong, than change her mind. 

Global warming is not a faith-based issue. It is an issue that can be studied scientifically. She has no interest in that.  Approaching this kind of stuff with blinders and sticking your fingers in your ears (hiding emails that show the science and predictions are right) is not what we need in office.

I feel pretty strongly that she would be very bad for this country. 

You probably feel that way about Obama or Biden.


----------



## AllieBaba (Sep 20, 2008)

I'm still trying to figure out how she's "extremist". 

Being pro-life isn't extremist, folks.


----------



## Shadow (Sep 20, 2008)

Modbert said:


> Reasonable limits?
> 
> She only wants Abortion if it threatens the mother's life.
> 
> ...



you don't need an abortion for rape, that is what the day after pill is for..this is just a ploy the liberals like to toss out cuz it sounds good.


----------



## AllieBaba (Sep 20, 2008)

It's a scare tactic. The whole, "If you don't let girls get abortions, there will be all these rape babies all over the place."
It's a false premise, and meant to evoke an emotional rather than rational response, because there is no rationale for legalized child butchery.


----------



## Valerie (Sep 20, 2008)

AllieBaba said:


> It's a scare tactic. The whole, "If you don't let girls get abortions, there will be all these rape babies all over the place."
> It's a false premise, and meant to evoke an emotional rather than rational response, because there is no rationale for legalized child butchery.



The rationale is that you can't allow the government to force a birth upon a woman any more than you could allow a man to force himself upon a her.  The law provides that women have a choice as it relates to their own bodies.  I think your image of legalized butchery was meant to evoke an emotional response.


----------



## AllieBaba (Sep 20, 2008)

So you equate birth with rape. Nice.

A more likely analogy is of forcing a man to pay child support, despite the fact that he never wanted a child. 

Women can have all the choice they want over their own bodies. When it comes to pregnancy, however, it's not just one body, it's two. And the other body has a right to decide what it wants to do with itself as well. And until such time as it is able to voice an opinion, then it is our job to protect that life. 

Murder isn't ok just because you're talking about babies, or other vulnerable populations. Murder isn't okay because it makes somebody's life easier. Murder is never okay. And abortion is legalized butchery. Take a gander at some abortion film if you doubt it. But I doubt you will, because you don't want to look the hideous nature of the practice you hold so dear.


----------



## Missourian (Sep 20, 2008)

AllieBaba said:


> So you equate birth with rape. Nice.
> 
> A more likely analogy is of forcing a man to pay child support, despite the fact that he never wanted a child.
> 
> ...




  Well said!


----------



## AllieBaba (Sep 20, 2008)

Richard-H said:


> 1. When a person runs for office, especially a major federal office, the public has a right and an obligation to scrutinze every aspect of their lives.
> 
> 2. If Bill Clinton can't enjoy a cigar without the whole world knowing about it, then don't expect Republicans to enjoy a whole lot of privacy.
> 
> ...




Clinton was president when charges of sexual harassment were brought against him, so of course his relations with underage interns were the property of the public.

And really, what life-controlling laws  are you talking about that Republicans allegedly purport? And do go into detail about judging everyone on our own personal lives?


----------



## DiveCon (Sep 20, 2008)

AllieBaba said:


> So you equate birth with rape. Nice.
> 
> A more likely analogy is of forcing a man to pay child support, despite the fact that he never wanted a child.
> 
> ...


well said


----------



## Diuretic (Sep 20, 2008)

AllieBaba said:


> So you equate birth with rape. Nice.
> 
> ............



That was a severe misrepesentation of the poster's point Ali.  Don't whine when it comes back to you.

Valeri posted:
_The rationale is that you can't allow the government to force a birth upon a woman any more than you could allow a man to force himself upon a her. The law provides that women have a choice as it relates to their own bodies. I think your image of legalized butchery was meant to evoke an emotional response._

This is the essence of the point - the government should not be able to force a woman to give birth.  The law doesn't allow a man to force himself upon her, this is rape.  There is absolutely no equation in this post of birth with rape.  The common point is the will of the woman being overborne - by the state in the instance of her being forced to give birth and by the individual in the case of rape.  No equation at all.  You are being astoundingly intellectually dishonest.


----------



## Diuretic (Sep 20, 2008)

AllieBaba said:


> Clinton was president when charges of sexual harassment were brought against him, so of course his relations with underage interns were the property of the public.
> 
> And really, what life-controlling laws  are you talking about that Republicans allegedly purport? And do go into detail about judging everyone on our own personal lives?



Which underage interns?  If you mean Lewinski then you probably know she was in her early twenties.  Not underage.  Therefore his relations with her were private.


----------



## dilloduck (Sep 20, 2008)

Diuretic said:


> That was a severe misrepesentation of the poster's point Ali.  Don't whine when it comes back to you.
> 
> Valeri posted:
> _The rationale is that you can't allow the government to force a birth upon a woman any more than you could allow a man to force himself upon a her. The law provides that women have a choice as it relates to their own bodies. I think your image of legalized butchery was meant to evoke an emotional response._
> ...



Technically the government wouldnt be forcing a woman to give birth. It would be punishing her for killing a life.


----------



## Diuretic (Sep 20, 2008)

Ali try not to be so sloppy with the facts when you post.  The odd mistake is fine, we're all capable of that but you seem to be making so many factual errors that I think you need to think before you hit that enter button, especially when you go after someone else.


----------



## Missourian (Sep 20, 2008)

Diuretic said:


> That was a severe misrepesentation of the poster's point Ali.  Don't whine when it comes back to you.
> 
> Valeri posted:
> _The rationale is that you can't allow the government to force a birth upon a woman any more than you could allow a man to force himself upon a her. The law provides that women have a choice as it relates to their own bodies. I think your image of legalized butchery was meant to evoke an emotional response._
> ...




No one is advocating forcing a woman to give birth.  We are advocating against allowing a doctor to butcher a body with a beating heart and brain activity.


----------



## Diuretic (Sep 20, 2008)

Missourian said:


> No one is advocating forcing a woman to give birth.  We are advocating against allowing a doctor to butcher a body with a beating heart and brain activity.



So, at what stage of pregnancy will you allow termination?


----------



## Missourian (Sep 20, 2008)

Diuretic said:


> So, at what stage of pregnancy will you allow termination?



Do you mean in cases of abortion as contraception?  None.

Rape, incest, or life of the mother?  Morning after pill.  Abortion on a case by case basis.  each circumstance is different and I don't think you could put a cap on these.  The life of the mother could be threatened up to the date of birth.  In that case you are talking triage, not ethics.


----------



## Diuretic (Sep 21, 2008)

Missourian said:


> Do you mean in cases of abortion as contraception?  None.
> 
> Rape, incest, or life of the mother?  Morning after pill.  Abortion on a case by case basis.  each circumstance is different and I don't think you could put a cap on these.  The life of the mother could be threatened up to the date of birth.  In that case you are talking triage, not ethics.



Abortion can't be contraception because contraception prevents (well, it's intended to prevent) pregnancy.  Here we're talking about a pregnancy.  I need to clarify and not assume.  Is it the case that where a woman is pregnant from a voluntary act of sexual intercourse you believe the state should force her to allow the pregnancy to continue until childbirth?  Just checking.

Rape, incest (if it's not consensual it's also rape but that does complicate things) or life of the mother a pill that aborts the - is it called a zygote?  Anyway the drug aborts the fertiised egg.  

Do you believe a fertilised egg is a human life, a potential human life, a biological object?  I just need to clarify that.


----------



## HoleInTheVoid (Sep 21, 2008)

Chris said:


> Palin's extremist views have nothing to do with Christianity.



1) What exactly are Palin's beliefs?

2) What are proper Christian beliefs (please seperate between dogma and doctrine)?

3) Are you sure you've got the _Wright_ guy?


----------



## strollingbones (Sep 21, 2008)

Charles_Main said:


> Feminists hate Palin because she is not pro abortion rights. She wants some reasonable limits on Abortion.




she wants to ban all abortion even in rape and incest....hardly reasonable limits


----------



## HoleInTheVoid (Sep 21, 2008)

strollingbones said:


> she wants to ban all abortion even in rape and incest....hardly reasonable limits



Define reasonable.


----------



## Diuretic (Sep 21, 2008)

HoleInTheVoid said:


> Define reasonable.





Reasonable is......well......it's the state of not being unreasonable


----------



## HoleInTheVoid (Sep 21, 2008)

Diuretic said:


> Reasonable is......well......it's the state of not being unreasonable



Hardly a line of attack against a position you disagree with.


----------



## Diuretic (Sep 21, 2008)

HoleInTheVoid said:


> Hardly a line of attack against a position you disagree with.



It wasn't meant to be. You wanted a definition of "reasonable" you got it.

Now what?


----------



## HoleInTheVoid (Sep 21, 2008)

Diuretic said:


> It wasn't meant to be. You wanted a definition of "reasonable" you got it.
> 
> Now what?



I think you're complaint evaporated.


----------



## Diuretic (Sep 21, 2008)

HoleInTheVoid said:


> I think you're complaint evaporated.



I didn't have a complaint.  

Now what?


----------



## HoleInTheVoid (Sep 21, 2008)

Diuretic said:


> I didn't have a complaint.
> 
> Now what?



You complained her stance on abortion was "hardly reasonable".

Unless you consider "hardly reasonable" to be a compliment.


----------



## sealybobo (Sep 21, 2008)

strollingbones said:


> she wants to ban all abortion even in rape and incest....hardly reasonable limits



Reasonable?  Weren't these the same people that said Terry Shaivo had quality of life?  One republican even diagnosed her by seeing her on tv.  She was brain dead but they wanted to keep her alive because all life is precious, in their opinion.  

So there is nothing reasonable about republicans.  They want to be extreme about abortion.  Funny thing is, just like they didn't listen to us about the financial mess we're in, they won't listen to our warnings about how many unwanted and neglected kids will be born if abortion is made illegal.  Welfare, poverty and crime will all rise.  

I know a lot of young women who have gotten abotions.  Some tell me years later that they got one.  Yes they are a little sad, but they'd all do it again I in the same situation.  

I wonder if bush regrets getting a woman an illegal abortion back in the 70's?  He may never been president had he had that baby.  Oh well, maybe the kid would have grown up to be president.  But hey, his life is more important than some seed.


----------



## Caligirl (Sep 21, 2008)

AllieBaba said:


> I'm still trying to figure out how she's "extremist".



Squashing evidence (that your state paid for) in order to promote an agenda that the evidence is against, is an extreme managerial style. Saying that you have visited Ireland when it amounted to refueling is a little extreme. Setting up private email accounts for public work in order to evade records request is extreme. 

Her style is take no prisoners no holds barred, including ethics breaches, and that is extreme.


----------



## WillowTree (Sep 21, 2008)

She dosen't scare me, who scares me is Boyd's son you know the one who was caught with semi automatic weapons, cocaine heroin, and six illegal aliens that's who scares the beejesus outta me. Boyd raised a criminal.


----------



## AllieBaba (Sep 21, 2008)

Caligirl said:


> Squashing evidence (that your state paid for) in order to promote an agenda that the evidence is against, is an extreme managerial style. Saying that you have visited Ireland when it amounted to refueling is a little extreme. Setting up private email accounts for public work in order to evade records request is extreme.
> 
> Her style is take no prisoners no holds barred, including ethics breaches, and that is extreme.



You guys are laughable. No, it's not extreme. What is extreme is the left's fear of a woman who tells the truth and gets things done.

That's what scares you guys. Someone who talks straight and pursues goals is an animal you have no inkling how to cope with.


----------



## Red Dawn (Sep 21, 2008)

dilloduck said:


> Technically the government wouldnt be forcing a woman to give birth. It would be* punishing* her for killing a life.



I'd love to get you on record, and tell us what the punishment for women should be. 

If abortion is the murder of an innocent life, we must be talking jail time.  That's the only appropriate punishment for murder. 

So, what are we talking here?  First degree murder, and 25 to life?  Or, manslaughter, and 6 to 12?


----------



## Caligirl (Sep 21, 2008)

AllieBaba said:


> What is extreme is the left's fear of a woman who tells the truth and gets things done.



But she *doesn't *tell the truth. And you're right - THAT'S what scares me. 

She hired scientists specifically to find that the ice melt would not jeopardize the polar bears.

THey found that in fact it *would*. 

She tried to *hide *those findings and she reported that they found there would be no ill effect. That was a lie. 

She lied. For money. She is corrupt.

Translate this to _any _internationall issue, and you should be scared too. The woman is bad news. And she's not even smart about it. 


I don't care about her stance on the abortion thing but to have a politician who would lie to further an agenda - Doesn't this sound at all familiar to you?


----------



## Ravi (Sep 21, 2008)

Hey, but McCain thinks she knows more about energy than anyone else on earth, even though she's got no idea how much energy Alaska contributes to the country.


----------



## WillowTree (Sep 21, 2008)

Yes, but Boyd's son is running around with semi automatic weapons hyped up on cacaine and meth...


----------



## jschuck12001 (Sep 21, 2008)

AllieBaba said:


> You guys are laughable. No, it's not extreme. What is extreme is the left's fear of a woman who tells the truth and gets things done.
> 
> That's what scares you guys. Someone who talks straight and pursues goals is an animal you have no inkling how to cope with.



She doesnt tell the truth and thats why her numbers are falling, she bullshits her way through her town hall meetings and repeats herself over and over without talking about anything of substance.  This is why she scares people.


----------



## Caligirl (Sep 21, 2008)

As far as abortion being murder - 

Is poor prenatal care that results in a spontaneous abortion 3rd degree manslaughter?


----------



## WillowTree (Sep 21, 2008)

but she has an 80% approval rating in Alaska and Boyd's son is on the loose.


----------



## AllieBaba (Sep 21, 2008)

Caligirl said:


> But she *doesn't *tell the truth. And you're right - THAT'S what scares me.
> 
> She hired scientists specifically to find that the ice melt would not jeopardize the polar bears.
> 
> ...




Link, nitiwit. Back up some of the propoganda you're plagiarizing from the Democratic campaign websites. Try doing a little research on your own.


----------



## AllieBaba (Sep 21, 2008)

Caligirl said:


> As far as abortion being murder -
> 
> Is poor prenatal care that results in a spontaneous abortion 3rd degree manslaughter?



As the women who get jailed and charged for using drugs while they're pregnant, then have their babies taken from them at birth.


----------



## WillowTree (Sep 21, 2008)

AllieBaba said:


> Link, nitiwit. Back up some of the propoganda you're plagiarizing from the Democratic campaign websites. Try doing a little research on your own.


----------



## AllieBaba (Sep 21, 2008)

jschuck12001 said:


> She doesnt tell the truth and thats why her numbers are falling, she bullshits her way through her town hall meetings and repeats herself over and over without talking about anything of substance.  This is why she scares people.



Once again, prove she doesn't tell the truth.

And the claim that she didn't actually sell the jet on ebay doesn't wash.


----------



## Caligirl (Sep 21, 2008)

You didn't read the polar bear study did you. 

Here's your proof:




> Rick Steiner, a University of Alaska professor, sought the e-mail messages of state scientists who had examined the effect of global warming on polar bears. (Ms. Palin said the scientists had found no ill effects, and she has sued the federal government to block the listing of the bears as endangered.) An administration official told Mr. Steiner that his request would cost $468,784 to process.
> 
> When Mr. Steiner finally obtained the e-mail messages &#8212; through a federal records request &#8212; he discovered that state scientists had in fact agreed that the bears were in danger, records show.



The decent thing is to read up about it, if you are voting for this woman. 

And how about this as evidence of obstructionistic tendencies and lack of transparency:



> While Ms. Palin took office promising a more open government, her administration has battled to keep information secret. Her inner circle discussed the benefit of using private e-mail addresses. An assistant told her it appeared that such e-mail messages sent to a private address on a &#8220;personal device&#8221; like a BlackBerry &#8220;would be confidential and not subject to subpoena.&#8221;
> Ms. Palin and aides use their private e-mail addresses for state business. A campaign spokesman said the governor copied e-mail messages to her state account &#8220;when there was significant state business.&#8221;
> 
> *On Feb. 7, Frank Bailey, a high-level aide, wrote to Ms. Palin&#8217;s state e-mail address to discuss appointments. Another aide fired back: &#8220;Frank, this is not the governor&#8217;s personal account.&#8221;
> ...



Warning: The article is five pages long.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/09/14/u...gin&adxnnlx=1222009792-FvN2QtM3FebdSzZDgi7kEQ


Seriously, are you GLAD that Bush/Cheney have been obstructionist, non-transparent, lied to get us into a war that has drained this country dry?


----------



## jschuck12001 (Sep 21, 2008)

AllieBaba said:


> Once again, prove she doesn't tell the truth.
> 
> And the claim that she didn't actually sell the jet on ebay doesn't wash.



The bridge to nowhere, she changed her position when congress shot it down, its been talked about on these boards a ton and I'm not giving you any links because you will spin it but its a fact.  Plus the whole troopergate scandel.  If she has nothing to hide then why wont she cooperate.


----------



## WillowTree (Sep 21, 2008)

jschuck12001 said:


> The bridge to nowhere, she changed her position when congress shot it down, its been talked about on these boards a ton and I'm not giving you any links because you will spin it but its a fact.  Plus the whole troopergate scandel.  If she has nothing to hide then why wont she cooperate.







there is no troopergate scandal, but, I"m happy it keeps you guys happy and satisfied..


----------



## jschuck12001 (Sep 21, 2008)

WillowTree said:


> there is no troopergate scandal, but, I"m happy it keeps you guys happy and satisfied..



There is none because they cant do anything about it until Feb.  Thats the only reason.  Please tell me why she said she would cooperate and now she wont.  I cant wait to hear your response.


----------



## WillowTree (Sep 21, 2008)

jschuck12001 said:


> There is none because they cant do anything about it until Feb.  Thats the only reason.  Please tell me why she said she would cooperate and now she wont.  I cant wait to hear your response.



in what way? Charlie?


----------



## Missourian (Sep 21, 2008)

Diuretic said:


> Is it the case that where a woman is pregnant from a voluntary act of sexual intercourse you believe the state should force her to allow the pregnancy to continue until childbirth?  Just checking.



"The state should force her to allow"...It seems some force was applied to force the word "force" into that sentence .  I don't think it is possible to be "forced to allow".  You have stipulated that the pregnancy was voluntary.  The law requires a bartender to stop serving a patron after they become drunk, is the state forcing them to allow their body to get sober?  

I believe the state should NOT allow a doctor to kill and dismember the body of an unborn child...a body with a heartbeat, arms and legs, a brain and neural activity.





Diuretic said:


> Do you believe a fertilised egg is a human life, a potential human life, a biological object?  I just need to clarify that.



As Barack Obama says,  that is above my paygrade.  I personally believe that it is a human life.  But some say it is not.  I do not have the knowledge required to argue my belief from a scientific perspective, only a religious one.  I do believe that any reasonable person would agree that a "biological object" that has a heartbeat, arms and legs, a brain, neural activity and can move on it's own *is alive and to kill them for convenience sake is murder.*

I believe that in the future, history will judge the practice abortion in the 20th and 21st century the way we judge the practice of slavery.




(I will be away for a few days and can only post via cell phone, so don't expect any dissertations, only short replies)

.


----------



## Caligirl (Sep 21, 2008)

Troopergate:

Maddow was reporting that it will be finished on time, that there was plenty of info even without the final testimony.



> Investigator: Palin probe to end before election
> 
> ANCHORAGE, Alaska (AP) &#8212; Gov. Sarah Palin's chief of staff authorized ex-Public Safety Commissioner Walt Monegan to travel to Washington, although the governor has cited that trip as a primary example of the insubordination that led to Monegan's firing.
> 
> ...



The Associated Press: Today on the presidential campaign trail

It might well be that they have plenty to wrok with without the last bits of testimony. They have all the plaintiffs testimony, and records of Wooten's actions, etc etc after all.


----------



## jschuck12001 (Sep 21, 2008)

WillowTree said:


> in what way? Charlie?



So you dont have an answer, thats what I thought.


----------



## WillowTree (Sep 21, 2008)

jschuck12001 said:


> So you dont have an answer, thats what I thought.



happy to oblige, sorta kinda like when Obama said he would take public funding and then he said he wouldn't isn't it??? Works to his advantage dosen't it. she get the same rights in America.. Long as it's legal.. hey?



oh,,, llllllllllllllllllllllllllll oh but wait,, she's a white republican woman who happens to be cute and we never expected you to put her on your ticket we expected romney and you double crossed us you lied and now polar bears die, bush lied, cheney lied, powell lied, rice lied, rumsfeld lied, mccain is lying and we're a dying, palin lied and the band played on............................ I think i am up to date now, or do i need a refresher course over at KOS.. so let's all sit down in mama's basement and fill it with our faux outrage, distortion, propaganda, sling the shit at the wall like the howler monkies we are and hope it sticks,, Rachel Maddow says, and the beat goes on hooowdddy who hooowdddy hooowdy hi. everything is a big fat lie..


----------



## jschuck12001 (Sep 21, 2008)

WillowTree said:


> happy to oblige, sorta kinda like when Obama said he would take public funding and then he said he wouldn't isn't it??? Works to his advantage dosen't it. she get the same rights in America.. Long as it's legal.. hey?
> 
> 
> 
> oh,,, llllllllllllllllllllllllllll oh but wait,, she's a white republican woman who happens to be cute and we never expected you to put her on your ticket we expected romney and you double crossed us you lied and now polar bears die, bush lied, cheney lied, powell lied, rice lied, rumsfeld lied, mccain is lying and we're a dying, palin lied and the band played on............................ I think i am up to date now, or do i need a refresher course over at KOS.. so let's all sit down in mama's basement and fill it with our faux outrage, distortion, propaganda, sling the shit at the wall like the howler monkies we are and hope it sticks,, Rachel Maddow says, and the beat goes on hooowdddy who hooowdddy hooowdy hi. everything is a big fat lie..



He would have been stupid to take public financing and his inexperience bit him in the ass on that one, thats more of a flip flop.  But ok lets says thats a lie because he did say he would use public money so literally it was a lie but Plain's lies are just flat out lies that she still wont budge off of.


----------



## Caligirl (Sep 21, 2008)

WillowTree said:


> happy to oblige, sorta kinda like when Obama said he would take public funding and then he said he wouldn't isn't it??? Works to his advantage dosen't it. she get the same rights in America.. Long as it's legal.. hey?
> 
> 
> 
> oh,,, llllllllllllllllllllllllllll oh but wait,, she's a white republican woman who happens to be cute and we never expected you to put her on your ticket we expected romney and you double crossed us you lied and now polar bears die, bush lied, cheney lied, powell lied, rice lied, rumsfeld lied, mccain is lying and we're a dying, palin lied and the band played on............................ I think i am up to date now, or do i need a refresher course over at KOS.. so let's all sit down in mama's basement and fill it with our faux outrage, distortion, propaganda, sling the shit at the wall like the howler monkies we are and hope it sticks,, Rachel Maddow says, and the beat goes on hooowdddy who hooowdddy hooowdy hi. everything is a big fat lie..



The difference being that these things cause people to die the world over, and links are provided so that you, as a responsible citizen, can decide for yourself if you want to put another crook in the whitehouse who will drive the country further into a ditch. Sorry if you see that as fearmongering, friend.


----------



## Missourian (Sep 21, 2008)

Isn't it true that the polar bear population has risen from 5,000 to 25,000 in the last 50 years *and is still increasing ?*  So why are we discussing this?


----------



## WillowTree (Sep 21, 2008)

Missourian said:


> Isn't it true that the polar bear population has risen from 5,000 to 25,000 in the last 50 years *and is still increasing ?*  So why are we discussing this?









sssssshh, it's in their talking points.  truth is secondary!


----------



## Caligirl (Sep 21, 2008)

Missourian said:


> Isn't it true that the polar bear population has risen from 5,000 to 25,000 in the last 50 years *and is still increasing ?*  So why are we discussing this?



*(1)* Sarah Palin used state money to fund an investigation to find that the polar bears were not in danger from warming.

*(2)* The investigation found that they ARE in danger from warning.

*(3) *She misrepresented the findings, because they weren't the results she wanted  (she did this for the oil companies). 

She lied. She didn't like the results of the study, and so she lied. Plain and simple. Topping it off is that she used her private email account for this issue, to block transparency.

Two things: (A) She doesn't use science to inform her decisions and (B) she lies.

If this is the person you want, go for it!


----------



## AllieBaba (Sep 21, 2008)

"Ms. Palin said the scientists had found no ill effects, and she has sued the federal government to block the listing of the bears as endangered"

No ill effects from global warming.
Which is absolutely right and true.

Yet another lie generated by the left.


----------



## Caligirl (Sep 21, 2008)

How so?

THe loss of ice is threatening the bears.

ps I'm the only one on this issue here, and I am most definitely not 'the left.'

But my main q is How do you reach the conclusion that the  bears are not being hurt? TIA.


----------



## WillowTree (Sep 21, 2008)

Caligirl said:


> *(1)* Sarah Palin used state money to fund an investigation to find that the polar bears were not in danger from warming.
> 
> *(2)* The investigation found that they ARE in danger from warning.
> 
> ...







whose lies (and you haven't convinced anybody)  aren't nearly on the scale of Obamalama's so yes, I will vote for her in a heartbeat.


----------



## Caligirl (Sep 21, 2008)

Thanks for admitting that she lies.  I appreciate it.


----------



## AllieBaba (Sep 21, 2008)

Caligirl said:


> How so?
> 
> THe loss of ice is threatening the bears.
> 
> ...



Provide a respectable source that verifies that.
Not Gore's crap, either. A reputable scientific study which proves that man-made global warming is threatenig the polar bears.

Of course you won't find it, because it DOESN'T FUCKING EXIST. But knock yourself out.


----------



## Chris (Sep 21, 2008)

WillowTree said:


> whose lies (and you haven't convinced anybody)  aren't nearly on the scale of Obamalama's so yes, I will vote for her in a heartbeat.



After she is recommended for indictment in October, she may not be on the ticket.

Although I hope she is.


----------



## WillowTree (Sep 21, 2008)

Caligirl said:


> Thanks for admitting that she lies.  I appreciate it.



read within the bracets... oh...........wait.............truth...........is not important


----------



## Caligirl (Sep 21, 2008)

So Allie, you don't have a source to say that they aren't being hurt?



> Provide a respectable source that verifies that.
> Not Gore's crap, either. A reputable scientific study which proves that man-made global warming is threatenig the polar bears.
> 
> Of course you won't find it, because it DOESN'T FUCKING EXIST. But knock yourself out.


The source is *the emails from the scientists Palin hired*. It is not a left wing thing, it is the resultrs she paid for.



> an Oct. 9 e-mail from Robert Small, head of the marine mammals program for the Alaska Department of Fish and Game.
> 
> Small named two other marine mammal biologists on staff and said the three of them had *reviewed the nine new polar bear studies that the federal government was citing to justify a threatened-species listing for the bears.*
> 
> "Overall, we believe that the methods and analytical approaches used to examine the currently available information *supports **the primary conclusions and inferences stated in these 9 reports*," Small wrote.



...the emails from the scientists Palin hired. She did not hire Gore. She then stated that the scientists (that she hired) said no ill effects (which is opposite what they said.).


E-mail reveals state dispute over polar bear listing: Polar Bear News | adn.com


----------



## Caligirl (Sep 21, 2008)

WillowTree said:


> read within the bracets... oh...........wait.............truth...........is not important



You're so cute. 

You said that _her lies _were not as bad as Obama's. 

That is progress.  You are willing to entertain the idea that she lies. I am content.


----------



## WillowTree (Sep 21, 2008)

Caligirl said:


> You're so cute.
> 
> You said that _her lies _were not as bad as Obama's.
> 
> That is progress.  You are willing to entertain the idea that she lies. I am content.





what does what I wrote within the brackets say to you???


NCPA | Brief Analysis #551, Polar Bears on Thin Ice, Not Really!


----------



## Caligirl (Sep 21, 2008)

Your brackets said you weren't convinced. But that means you were listening.  It also sounded distinctly like you were willing to _consider _that she lies. 

(Which she does. <wicked grin>)


----------



## Missourian (Sep 21, 2008)

So,  the polar bear population is currently increasing and has been for the last 50 years but they are more endangered now then they were 5 years ago when there were less of them.  Now I understand...It's clear as mud.




> Yet despite the Canadian government 's $150-million commitment last week to fund 44 International Polar Year research projects, a key question is not up for detailed scientific assessment: If the polar bear is the 650-kilogram canary in the climate change coal mine, why are its numbers INCREASING?
> 
> The latest government survey of polar bears roaming the vast Arctic expanses of northern Quebec, Labrador and southern Baffin Island show the population of polar bears has jumped to 2,100 animals from around 800 in the mid-1980s.
> 
> ...



Link


----------



## AllieBaba (Sep 21, 2008)

Caligirl said:


> So Allie, you don't have a source to say that they aren't being hurt?
> 
> 
> The source is *the emails from the scientists Palin hired*. It is not a left wing thing, it is the resultrs she paid for.
> ...



Ok, I read it. They came to no conclusion. They can't say that global warming is causing a  problem. They can't say anything at all, and they don't say anything.

Do you guys ever just read what is written, listen to what is said, and go with that...instead of making up pretend scenarios of what must REALLY be going on and running with those? And what the hell is the sudden interest of greenie yahoos who live in condos in NYC, San Fran and Chicago, in polar bears...which for reasons which have absolutely nothing to do with global warming, are a dying species anyway?


----------



## Caligirl (Sep 21, 2008)

Missourian said:


> So,  the polar bear population is currently increasing and has been for the last 50 years but they are more endangered now then they were 5 years ago when there were less of them.  Now I understand...It's clear as mud.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



My primary issue isn't with whether the bear population is going up or down, it is with whether Palin honestly represented the findings of the scientific study she asked for.

She didn't. 

She lied, and she blocked transparency. 

We aren't electing the bears after all, we are potentially electing *Palin*. What sorts of guiding principles does she follow? THis case shows that she ignores science when it doesn't conform to her views, that she lies and blocks transparency to further her own agenda.

If she can do this on the bear issue, she can do it on any issue. Iran, Russia, the economy, whatever!


----------



## WillowTree (Sep 21, 2008)

Caligirl said:


> Your brackets said you weren't convinced. But that means you were listening.  It also sounded distinctly like you were willing to _consider _that she lies.
> 
> (Which she does. <wicked grin>)






what it says, since you don't pay attention is, even though you say over and over and over and over and over and over again that she lies, you haven't convinced anybody..... hope that helps,, When was Obama born? When did Selma happen...


----------



## Caligirl (Sep 21, 2008)

AllieBaba said:


> Ok, I read it. They came to no conclusion. They can't say that global warming is causing a  problem. They can't say anything at all, and they don't say anything.
> 
> Do you guys ever just read what is written, listen to what is said, and go with that...instead of making up pretend scenarios of what must REALLY be going on and running with those? And what the hell is the sudden interest of greenie yahoos who live in condos in NYC, San Fran and Chicago, in polar bears...which for reasons which have absolutely nothing to do with global warming, are a dying species anyway?



I am the only person that I know talking about this so stop saying it is a left issue, or people in condos, or whatever. I live in Reagan country. The hunters I know are as concerned about the environment as I am, because that's their sport. 

But anyway, can you elaboprate on what you mean when you say they didn't find anything?

Thank you btw for reading the article ait is appreciated.


----------



## Caligirl (Sep 21, 2008)

WillowTree said:


> what it says, since you don't pay attention is, even though you say over and over and over and over and over and over again that she lies, you haven't convinced anybody..... hope that helps,, When was Obama born? When did Selma happen...



What do I say over and over again, that she lies?

(Couldn't resist )


----------



## AllieBaba (Sep 21, 2008)

Missourian said:


> So,  the polar bear population is currently increasing and has been for the last 50 years but they are more endangered now then they were 5 years ago when there were less of them.  Now I understand...It's clear as mud.
> 
> 
> 
> ...




Facts mean nothing to the yahoos. It's all about what they FEEL and what they imagine peole are really thinking, and what COULD happen, if anything they wished was  happening (man made global warming, destruction of the environment, end of the world) really happened.

They want the polar bears dead, because that will prove that man is a parasite on the earth. And they will use any ridiculous tool, no matter how blunt or inadequate for the job, to smear Palin, because she's a woman, she's conservative, and horror of horrors, an unapologetic CHRISTIAN. You know that Christians deserve to die, and short of that, they must be neutralized using whatever weapons are at hand.


----------



## AllieBaba (Sep 21, 2008)

Caligirl said:


> I am the only person that I know talking about this so stop saying it is a left issue, or people in condos, or whatever. I live in Reagan country. The hunters I know are as concerned about the environment as I am, because that's their sport.
> 
> But anyway, can you elaboprate on what you mean when you say they didn't find anything?
> 
> Thank you btw for reading the article ait is appreciated.



I read nothing that put the lie to Palin's comments. It seems they can't decide. I don't see that as evidence that Palin is lying. Polar bear populations have been increasing. Where's the problem?

Oh, that's right. There isn't one. It's pie in the sky.


----------



## Shadow (Sep 21, 2008)

Chris said:


> After she is recommended for indictment in October, she may not be on the ticket.
> 
> Although I hope she is.



Obama will be going down long before Governor Palin. 

Violating the Logan Act
Fannie Mae Fraud.
Folks connected to his campaign manager hacking into a Governor's Email account, which is a federal crime.

I'm sure he has plenty more of these nifty crooked acts locked away in his closet ready to be released in say....October.


----------



## Caligirl (Sep 21, 2008)

AllieBaba said:


> Facts mean nothing to the yahoos. It's all about what they FEEL and what they imagine peole are really thinking, and what COULD happen, if anything they wished was  happening (man made global warming, destruction of the environment, end of the world) really happened.
> 
> They want the polar bears dead, because that will prove that man is a parasite on the earth. And they will use any ridiculous tool, no matter how blunt or inadequate for the job, to smear Palin, because she's a woman, she's conservative, and horror of horrors, an unapologetic CHRISTIAN. You know that Christians deserve to die, and short of that, they must be neutralized using whatever weapons are at hand.



Umm, I have said consistently that I want my politicians to be honest and to use science as one source to inform policy. 


Palin did not use her own paid-for science to inform her policy, and that shows she does not value science.  It's fine if Joe Blow on the street doesn't value science but people who are making policy for the country really ought to. 

The bears will probably manage to evolve to survive without sea ice, but that is beside the point (and a different discussion).  The point is, is Palin the sort of person you want in the white house. You can look at how she made past decisions to help decide that.


----------



## AllieBaba (Sep 21, 2008)

I don't see the lie. The scientists didn't prove anything definitively. Why would she pretend they had?


----------



## WillowTree (Sep 21, 2008)

AllieBaba said:


> Facts mean nothing to the yahoos. It's all about what they FEEL and what they imagine peole are really thinking, and what COULD happen, if anything they wished was  happening (man made global warming, destruction of the environment, end of the world) really happened.
> 
> They want the polar bears dead, because that will prove that man is a parasite on the earth. And they will use any ridiculous tool, no matter how blunt or inadequate for the job, to smear Palin, because she's a woman, she's conservative, and horror of horrors, an unapologetic CHRISTIAN. You know that Christians deserve to die, and short of that, they must be neutralized using whatever weapons are at hand.





you know they sat up a guillotine over at DU didn't ya?? a contest on who could bag the biggest Republican.. Howler monkeys throw turd balls


----------



## Caligirl (Sep 21, 2008)

AllieBaba said:


> I read nothing that put the lie to Palin's comments. It seems they can't decide. I don't see that as evidence that Palin is lying. Polar bear populations have been increasing. Where's the problem?
> 
> Oh, that's right. There isn't one. It's pie in the sky.



Here's the problem is dishonesty, and disregard for science. From that previous link:



> The state's marine mammal scientists agreed last year with federal researchers who concluded polar bears are threatened with extinction because of a shrinking ice cap.
> 
> A newly released e-mail from last fall shows that the state's own biologists were at odds with the Palin administration, which has consistently opposed any new federal protections for polar bears under the Endangered Species Act.



As I read the article, it looks like the "they don't know" idea comes from Palin ("the state") on one side saying one thing and the scientists saying the opposite.


----------



## dilloduck (Sep 21, 2008)

Why does anyone think that being a "scientist" some how makes them unbiased ans without an agenda ?


----------



## Missourian (Sep 21, 2008)

I guess your not seeing my point or Gov. Palin's.  By putting the polar bears on the threatened list, the business interests in Alaska will have to change their procedures from what they are doing now, even though the bear population has *increased* under the procedures they are using now.

Gov. Palin is protecting jobs in her state.  *That is part of her job.*





.


----------



## Caligirl (Sep 21, 2008)

dilloduck said:


> Why does anyone think that being a "scientist" some how makes them unbiased ans without an agenda ?



I think the idea is consensus, not an individual's position, and whether you have a pattern of agreeing that science is a good thing, or not.


----------



## Caligirl (Sep 21, 2008)

Missourian said:


> I guess your not seeing my point or Gov. Palin's.  By putting the polar bears on the threatened list, the business interest in Alaska will have to change there procedures from what they are doing now, even though the bear population has *increased* under the procedures they are using now.
> 
> Gov. Palin is protecting jobs in here state.  *That is part of her job.*



It's possible that the end goal was a worthy one. I think her style to *reach *that goal requires a little scrutiny. I don't generally believe that the ends ever justify the means when the means are dishonest.

I am pooped from this discussion, see y'all later.


----------



## dilloduck (Sep 21, 2008)

Caligirl said:


> I think the idea is consensus, not an individual's position, and whether you have a pattern of agreeing that science is a good thing, or not.



ok --science in general---do you think they have no agenda but to seek the truth ?


----------



## Caligirl (Sep 21, 2008)

I don't know the answer to that. 

I do think science (using available evidence without bias) is indispensibal for most of the policy decisions that government officials face.

Everything from looking at intelligence honestly, to crime statistics, to global warming, to the economy - policy is usually better when it is evidence-based instead of faith-based. 

Living a fulfilled personal day-to-day life, on the other hand, usually benefits as much or more from faith.


----------



## sealybobo (Sep 21, 2008)

Just like Obama doesn't want Farrakan's endorsement, I'm sure the gop wishes alliebabble would shut the fuck up.  

Ms. Palin's extreme views may be popular with extremists, but not with the mainstream.


----------



## dilloduck (Sep 21, 2008)

Caligirl said:


> --policy is usually better when it is evidence-based instead of faith-based.



'Better' STILL does not mean accurate.


----------



## Caligirl (Sep 21, 2008)

Oh you and your're nuance. Retard.


----------



## AllieBaba (Sep 21, 2008)

sealybobo said:


> Just like Obama doesn't want Farrakan's endorsement, I'm sure the gop wishes alliebabble would shut the fuck up.
> 
> Ms. Palin's extreme views may be popular with extremists, but not with the mainstream.



Gosh, it must kill you that the polls and major television  networks, including LEFT WING CAMPAIGN STRATEGISTS disagree with your lie.


----------



## DiveCon (Sep 21, 2008)

jschuck12001 said:


> She doesnt tell the truth and thats why her numbers are falling, she bullshits her way through her town hall meetings and repeats herself over and over without talking about anything of substance.  This is why she scares people.


that sounds more like Obama


----------

