Female Mccain''s VP pick

[thumbelina]

My apologies, DF!

I read your post about Joe Biden and skimmed over the "to them" part of "to them, you cannot be Catholic and pro choice" comment.

 

[thumbelina]

Mimzy, in some cases the unborn fetus is harming the mother. But for the sake of argument, let''s just say killing unborn fetuses is wrong -- wouldn''t it follow that killing innocent Iraqis is wrong too?

But, yes, enough of the abortion talk.

Besides, there are so many other things to dislike about Palin. $150 for the left foreleg of that pesky wolf, anyone?

 

[trillionaire]

http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/the_daily_dish/2008/09/mccains-integri.html

Commentary, not a fact article. By a conservative.

 

[MoonWater]

I love Andrew Sullivan.

 

[Anna0499]

Date: 9/15/2008 4:25:21 PM
Author: mimzy

Date: 9/15/2008 4:07:13 PM
Author: IndyGirl22

Date: 9/15/2008 3:50:31 PM

Author: mimzy


not saying i agree or disagree, but just to play devil''s advocate.....


then it''s wrong to outlaw murder or assault? or anything else that is outlawed for the good of humanity for that matter? again, i''m not saying i agree or disagree, but if you are using free will to justify abortions then you need to apply it to other restrictions as well.

I agree...I don''t think it''s a free will choice as in, we have the freedom to do it so we can''t tell others not to...too many laws are based on the premise of right/wrong that I don''t think abortion can be based on the free will argument.

McCain says Obama didn''t call Palin a pig - what has the election come to when Rove is the voice of reason? lol

a voice of reason AND ethics?!

i imagine they are both (likely more mccain) is feeling pretty embarrassed right now.

LOL yeah, anyone who actually read the article will understand that last part!

I don''t think either of them have to be embarrassed; alls fair in politics nowadays.

 

[Anna0499]

Date: 9/15/2008 6:26:16 PM
Author: thing2of2

Yes, but as we know, Iraq did not have any weapons of mass destruction and there wasn''t definitive proof that they did from the onset, so they were never a threat to our national security. Yet we are still in a war that our tax dollars are paying for.

As for ''anti-life politicians aren''t taking away the right to life''? That makes absolutely no sense. Pro-choice politicians believe that a woman has the right to make the decision whether or not to have a legal abortion. If abortion is outlawed, women will still have abortions. That''s why abortion became legal in the first place. Many doctors, nurses, politicians and even clergy fought for a woman''s right to a safe and legal abortion because of how many dangerous botched abortions they saw.

Against abortion? Don''t have one! You and all the other anti-abortion supporters don''t have the right to tell me (or any other woman) what to do with my uterus. (Or fetus, or unborn child, or potential life, or whatever you want to call it.)

Overturning Roe v. Wade wouldn''t outlaw abortion...just an Obama myth.

However, I would like to point out that many pro-lifers don''t think it''s just an "I''m against it so I''m not having one" issue - to them it''s the same as murder of an innocent human being. AND just because someone doesn''t have one doesn''t mean they aren''t paying for one. You wouldn''t say "Against murder? Don''t commit one!" and allow others to do it. I''m not trying to start a fight; I just think there are misunderstandings and confusion perpetuated by Obama''s campaign & am explaining the basis of the pro-life movement for some (not those who are against Roe v. Wade because of federalism principles/Constitution).

 

[Anna0499]

Date: 9/15/2008 6:36:41 PM
Author: swimmer
Backing away nervously from the abortion mess...

A huge anti-Palin rally in Alaska! link

The video is really interesting, lots of photos showing the posters, ''my daughter deserves better than Palin'' was interesting, ''W with Lipstick'' seemed popular as well. Most popular, ''Voted for her once, never again'' I''ve now seen two different polls with her popularity as Gov in Alaska being below 50%...interesting.

LMAO at "I don''t vote for liars" sign...I guess she doesn''t vote at all!

 

[mimzy]

Date: 9/15/2008 9:19:45 PM
Author: MoonWater
I love Andrew Sullivan.

i wholeheartedly agree.

 

[iheartscience]

Date: 9/15/2008 9:34:08 PM
Author: IndyGirl22

Date: 9/15/2008 6:26:16 PM

Author: thing2of2


Yes, but as we know, Iraq did not have any weapons of mass destruction and there wasn''t definitive proof that they did from the onset, so they were never a threat to our national security. Yet we are still in a war that our tax dollars are paying for.


As for ''anti-life politicians aren''t taking away the right to life''? That makes absolutely no sense. Pro-choice politicians believe that a woman has the right to make the decision whether or not to have a legal abortion. If abortion is outlawed, women will still have abortions. That''s why abortion became legal in the first place. Many doctors, nurses, politicians and even clergy fought for a woman''s right to a safe and legal abortion because of how many dangerous botched abortions they saw.


Against abortion? Don''t have one! You and all the other anti-abortion supporters don''t have the right to tell me (or any other woman) what to do with my uterus. (Or fetus, or unborn child, or potential life, or whatever you want to call it.)

Overturning Roe v. Wade wouldn''t outlaw abortion...just an Obama myth.

However, I would like to point out that many pro-lifers don''t think it''s just an ''I''m against it so I''m not having one'' issue - to them it''s the same as murder of an innocent human being. AND just because someone doesn''t have one doesn''t mean they aren''t paying for one. You wouldn''t say ''Against murder? Don''t commit one!'' and allow others to do it. I''m not trying to start a fight; I just think there are misunderstandings and confusion perpetuated by Obama''s campaign & am explaining the basis of the pro-life movement for some (not those who are against Roe v. Wade because of federalism principles/Constitution).

Actually, if Roe v. Wade was overturned, it would allow many states to outlaw abortion-not an Obama myth.

Have you not heard about South Dakota''s attempts to outlaw abortion?

 

[Anna0499]

Date: 9/15/2008 9:41:05 PM
Author: thing2of2

Actually, if Roe v. Wade was overturned, it would allow many states to outlaw abortion-not an Obama myth.

Have you not heard about South Dakota's attempts to outlaw abortion?

Well then the STATES & it's PEOPLE would outlaw abortion, NOT the overturning of Roe v. Wade alone. That is the heart of federalism. It's definitely a possibility of things to come if Roe v. Wade were overturned, and I understand why pro-choice advocates would want Roe v. Wade upheld, but once the SCOTUS decided to get involved in these matters by legislating from the bench and hiding the real reason behind the decision behind the Constitution, it kind of left it open for overturning in the future, and thus, this debate every presidential election.

 

[Krissie]

One thing I've noticed lately is that many Republicans want to overturn Roe v. Wade on the basis of federalism - that it should be the states that determine whether abortion should be legal.

I wonder, then, why so many Republicans want a Constitutional ban on gay marriage?

I'm not trying to compare the two; I'm just trying to figure out what Republicans believe is apprioriately legislated on a federal level versus a state level, and these were two obvious (contrasting) examples.

 

[goobear78]

So now Gov. Palin is going back on her word and will NOT aid the "troopergate" investigation. The McCain camp is saying that''s because the investigation is run by the Democrats. Which is untrue, the panel has five members, THREE are Republicans, only TWO are Democrats. I have a huge problem with this. If she doesn''t have anything to hide, why won''t she come forward and clear it up? Seems if you have nothing to hide, you wouldn''t shy away and not try everything to clear your name.

The news article from the AP below:


Palin won''t meet with ''Troopergate'' investigator
By GENE JOHNSON – 36 minutes ago

ANCHORAGE, Alaska (AP) — A campaign spokesman says Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin won''t speak with an investigator hired by lawmakers to look into the firing of her public safety commissioner.

McCain campaign spokesman Ed O''Callaghan told a news conference Monday that the governor, the Republican nominee for vice president, will not cooperate as long as the investigation "remains tainted." He said he doesn''t know whether Palin''s husband would challenge a subpoena issued to compel his cooperation.

The campaign insists the investigation has been hijacked by Democrats. It says it can prove Public Safety Commissioner Walt Monegan was fired because of insubordination on budget issues — not because he refused to fire a state trooper who had divorced Palin''s sister.

 

[Anna0499]

Date: 9/15/2008 9:52:32 PM
Author: Krissie
One thing I've noticed lately is that many Republicans want to overturn Roe v. Wade on the basis of federalism - that it should be the states that determine whether abortion should be legal.

I wonder, then, why so many Republicans want a Constitutional ban on gay marriage?

I'm not trying to compare the two; I'm just trying to figure out what Republicans believe is apprioriately legislated on a federal level versus a state level, and these were two obvious (contrasting) examples.

I couldn't tell you; I live in a fairly conservative red state & I haven't heard any push towards Constitutionalizing the gay marriage issue, but then again I'm not a huge activist on that issue so maybe I'm just unaware. I would prefer it to remain a state issue so that the people can decide whether they want it or not. What I absolutely do NOT want is some SCOTUS decision about it - it would be another mess like abortion.

 

[Anna0499]

Date: 9/15/2008 9:52:45 PM
Author: goobear78

So now Gov. Palin is going back on her word and will NOT aid the ''troopergate'' investigation. The McCain camp is saying that''s because the investigation is run by the Democrats. Which is untrue, the panel has five members, THREE are Republicans, only TWO are Democrats. I have a huge problem with this. If she doesn''t have anything to hide, why won''t she come forward and clear it up? Seems if you have nothing to hide, you wouldn''t shy away and not try everything to clear your name.

The news article from the AP below:


Palin won''t meet with ''Troopergate'' investigator
By GENE JOHNSON – 36 minutes ago

ANCHORAGE, Alaska (AP) — A campaign spokesman says Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin won''t speak with an investigator hired by lawmakers to look into the firing of her public safety commissioner.

McCain campaign spokesman Ed O''Callaghan told a news conference Monday that the governor, the Republican nominee for vice president, will not cooperate as long as the investigation ''remains tainted.'' He said he doesn''t know whether Palin''s husband would challenge a subpoena issued to compel his cooperation.

The campaign insists the investigation has been hijacked by Democrats. It says it can prove Public Safety Commissioner Walt Monegan was fired because of insubordination on budget issues — not because he refused to fire a state trooper who had divorced Palin''s sister.

She probably wants a court order telling her she has to speak with them. She has that right if she feels that the investigation is less than unbiased. I don''t see a problem here...people who don''t have anything to hide refuse to speak to investigators everyday.

 

[goobear78]

Date: 9/15/2008 9:55:39 PM
Author: IndyGirl22

Date: 9/15/2008 9:52:32 PM
Author: Krissie
One thing I've noticed lately is that many Republicans want to overturn Roe v. Wade on the basis of federalism - that it should be the states that determine whether abortion should be legal.

I wonder, then, why so many Republicans want a Constitutional ban on gay marriage?

I'm not trying to compare the two; I'm just trying to figure out what Republicans believe is apprioriately legislated on a federal level versus a state level, and these were two obvious (contrasting) examples.

I couldn't tell you; I live in a fairly conservative red state & I haven't heard any push towards Constitutionalizing the gay marriage issue, but then again I'm not a huge activist on that issue so maybe I'm just unaware. I would prefer it to remain a state issue so that the people can decide whether they want it or not. What I absolutely do NOT want is some SCOTUS decision about it - it would be another mess like abortion.

Can you clarify this for me please? What do you mean? That you don't think gay marriage should be legalized?

 

[MoonWater]

Date: 9/15/2008 9:52:32 PM
Author: Krissie
One thing I''ve noticed lately is that many Republicans want to overturn Roe v. Wade on the basis of federalism - that it should be the states that determine whether abortion should be legal.


I wonder, then, why so many Republicans want a Constitutional ban on gay marriage?


I''m not trying to compare the two; I''m just trying to figure out what Republicans believe is apprioriately legislated on a federal level versus a state level, and these were two obvious (contrasting) examples.

Good question! That one never occurred to me!

 

[MoonWater]

Date: 9/15/2008 9:52:45 PM
Author: goobear78
So now Gov. Palin is going back on her word and will NOT aid the ''troopergate'' investigation. The McCain camp is saying that''s because the investigation is run by the Democrats. Which is untrue, the panel has five members, THREE are Republicans, only TWO are Democrats. I have a huge problem with this. If she doesn''t have anything to hide, why won''t she come forward and clear it up? Seems if you have nothing to hide, you wouldn''t shy away and not try everything to clear your name.


The news article from the AP below:



Palin won''t meet with ''Troopergate'' investigator

By GENE JOHNSON – 36 minutes ago

ANCHORAGE, Alaska (AP) — A campaign spokesman says Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin won''t speak with an investigator hired by lawmakers to look into the firing of her public safety commissioner.

McCain campaign spokesman Ed O''Callaghan told a news conference Monday that the governor, the Republican nominee for vice president, will not cooperate as long as the investigation ''remains tainted.'' He said he doesn''t know whether Palin''s husband would challenge a subpoena issued to compel his cooperation.

The campaign insists the investigation has been hijacked by Democrats. It says it can prove Public Safety Commissioner Walt Monegan was fired because of insubordination on budget issues — not because he refused to fire a state trooper who had divorced Palin''s sister.

wth?

 

[MoonWater]

Date: 9/15/2008 9:55:39 PM
Author: IndyGirl22

Date: 9/15/2008 9:52:32 PM

Author: Krissie

One thing I''ve noticed lately is that many Republicans want to overturn Roe v. Wade on the basis of federalism - that it should be the states that determine whether abortion should be legal.


I wonder, then, why so many Republicans want a Constitutional ban on gay marriage?


I''m not trying to compare the two; I''m just trying to figure out what Republicans believe is apprioriately legislated on a federal level versus a state level, and these were two obvious (contrasting) examples.

I couldn''t tell you; I live in a fairly conservative red state & I haven''t heard any push towards Constitutionalizing the gay marriage issue, but then again I''m not a huge activist on that issue so maybe I''m just unaware. I would prefer it to remain a state issue so that the people can decide whether they want it or not. What I absolutely do NOT want is some SCOTUS decision about it - it would be another mess like abortion.

If gay marriage becomes a state by state issue, would you then say that each state (regardless of whether it''s legal there) must recognize the gay couple''s marriage?

 

[Krissie]

Date: 9/15/2008 9:55:39 PM
Author: IndyGirl22

Date: 9/15/2008 9:52:32 PM
Author: Krissie
One thing I''ve noticed lately is that many Republicans want to overturn Roe v. Wade on the basis of federalism - that it should be the states that determine whether abortion should be legal.

I wonder, then, why so many Republicans want a Constitutional ban on gay marriage?

I''m not trying to compare the two; I''m just trying to figure out what Republicans believe is apprioriately legislated on a federal level versus a state level, and these were two obvious (contrasting) examples.

I couldn''t tell you; I live in a fairly conservative red state & I haven''t heard any push towards Constitutionalizing the gay marriage issue, but then again I''m not a huge activist on that issue so maybe I''m just unaware. I would prefer it to remain a state issue so that the people can decide whether they want it or not. What I absolutely do NOT want is some SCOTUS decision about it - it would be another mess like abortion.

It was a huge issue in 2004 -- so much so that it even made its way to my state''s bar exam (despite being told by BarBri that a gay marriage ban would be too "hot button" to be tested). It was - you guessed it - a federalism question -- although a lot of people thought it was an equal protection issue.

 

[goobear78]

Sarah Palin installed tanning bed in Alaska Governor's Mansion

It's true and her people say she paid for it with her own money, but this just brings out the giggles. Link is from US weekly. LOL.

 

[miraclesrule]

What I hear when I read these recent posts discussing both sides of the hot abortion debate is that each of us has a reverence for life and have an interest in preserving that. I think that we can all agree on that point. We all have this in common.

Some feel so strongly about it, that they would like everyone to be of the same belief.
Some feel so strongly about it, that they would like everyone to decide for themselves.

I don''t think anyone should take anything personally. I admire those who state their personal belief and value. I don''t think it is productive to try to convince a poster from changing their personal belief on such a matter. That is usually an exercise in futility and then we become divisive instead of educating each other. I wish that those posters who did have a personal story that would touch our hearts weren''t afraid of sharing it out of fear that a fellow PS will belittle or attack them, rather than try to understand them.

I see that each of the posters are bright enough to know that who they are today, may not be who or what they believe in ten or twenty years. Sometimes we change our beliefs through personal experience that transforms our belief system.

The only thing that distinguishes our human species from other "animals" is our ability to be aware that we aware. It''s our ability to think and then act, and not just act out of instinct, much like an animal does. I have no idea why I am writing this post, except that I feel we have strayed really far from the issues, and that is what the campaign machine wants us to do as a distraction from becoming truly educated citizens. Personally, I don''t want to be one of those people they think are that pliable.

 

[Anna0499]

Date: 9/15/2008 10:13:40 PM
Author: Krissie

It was a huge issue in 2004 -- so much so that it even made its way to my state's bar exam (despite being told by BarBri that a gay marriage ban would be too 'hot button' to be tested). It was - you guessed it - a federalism question -- although a lot of people thought it was an equal protection issue.

Haha oh good ol' federalism; I'm sure I'll see it on my bar exam in a few years but the context of the nation at that time will dictate how it is framed...

Goobear - Keeping my personal views on gay marriage out of this (plus, neither candidate supports it so it's kind of moot this election). I don't want SCOTUS to step in and legislate from the bench because it would turn into another abortion debate that is used as propaganda by both sides every election year. If there were actual laws enacted by legislative bodies instead of the judicial one people wouldn't fear the decision being overturned everytime a new justice is appointed/confirmed like they do now with abortion.

Moonwater - As far as recognizing gay marriage in states where it is not legalized, I don't know...that will be the big issue as more and more states choose to legally recognize it. I know it'd be a mess either way you cut it.

ETA: Whether or not these issues are "on topic" I thnk they have been pretty productive for the most part...I think everyone's been trying to state their points on the abortion issue & it's been done in a pretty tasteful way if you ask me - I couldn't imagine abortion being discussed in such civil way on any other board!

 

[MoonWater]

Date: 9/15/2008 10:35:28 PM
Author: miraclesrule
What I hear when I read these recent posts discussing both sides of the hot abortion debate is that each of us has a reverence for life and have an interest in preserving that. I think that we can all agree on that point. We all have this in common.


Some feel so strongly about it, that they would like everyone to be of the same belief.

Some feel so strongly about it, that they would like everyone to decide for themselves.


I don''t think anyone should take anything personally. I admire those who state their personal belief and value. I don''t think it is productive to try to convince a poster from changing their personal belief on such a matter. That is usually an exercise in futility and then we become divisive instead of educating each other. I wish that those posters who did have a personal story that would touch our hearts weren''t afraid of sharing it out of fear that a fellow PS will belittle or attack them, rather than try to understand them.


I see that each of the posters are bright enough to know that who they are today, may not be who or what they believe in ten or twenty years. Sometimes we change our beliefs through personal experience that transforms our belief system.


The only thing that distinguishes our human species from other ''animals'' is our ability to be aware that we aware. It''s our ability to think and then act, and not just act out of instinct, much like an animal does. I have no idea why I am writing this post, except that I feel we have strayed really far from the issues, and that is what the campaign machine wants us to do as a distraction from becoming truly educated citizens. Personally, I don''t want to be one of those people they think are that pliable.

 

[MoonWater]

Date: 9/15/2008 10:36:37 PM
Author: IndyGirl22

Date: 9/15/2008 10:13:40 PM

Author: Krissie


It was a huge issue in 2004 -- so much so that it even made its way to my state''s bar exam (despite being told by BarBri that a gay marriage ban would be too ''hot button'' to be tested). It was - you guessed it - a federalism question -- although a lot of people thought it was an equal protection issue.

Haha oh good ol'' federalism; I''m sure I''ll see it on my bar exam in a few years but the context of the nation at that time will dictate how it is framed...

Goobear - Keeping my personal views on gay marriage out of this (plus, neither candidate supports it so it''s kind of moot this election). I don''t want SCOTUS to step in and legislate from the bench because it would turn into another abortion debate that is used as propaganda by both sides every election year. If there were actual laws enacted by legislative bodies instead of the judicial one people wouldn''t fear the decision being overturned everytime a new justice is appointed/confirmed like they do now with abortion.


Moonwater - As far as recognizing gay marriage in states where it is not legalized, I don''t know...that will be the big issue as more and more states choose to legally recognize it. I know it''d be a mess either way you cut it.

Yes, it is a mess. Anyhoo, I agree that we need proper legislation for both in order to avoid the fear every election cycle. It''s nerve wracking.

 

[Anna0499]

Date: 9/15/2008 10:42:35 PM
Author: MoonWater

Date: 9/15/2008 10:36:37 PM
Author: IndyGirl22

Date: 9/15/2008 10:13:40 PM

Author: Krissie


It was a huge issue in 2004 -- so much so that it even made its way to my state's bar exam (despite being told by BarBri that a gay marriage ban would be too 'hot button' to be tested). It was - you guessed it - a federalism question -- although a lot of people thought it was an equal protection issue.

Haha oh good ol' federalism; I'm sure I'll see it on my bar exam in a few years but the context of the nation at that time will dictate how it is framed...

Goobear - Keeping my personal views on gay marriage out of this (plus, neither candidate supports it so it's kind of moot this election). I don't want SCOTUS to step in and legislate from the bench because it would turn into another abortion debate that is used as propaganda by both sides every election year. If there were actual laws enacted by legislative bodies instead of the judicial one people wouldn't fear the decision being overturned everytime a new justice is appointed/confirmed like they do now with abortion.


Moonwater - As far as recognizing gay marriage in states where it is not legalized, I don't know...that will be the big issue as more and more states choose to legally recognize it. I know it'd be a mess either way you cut it.

Yes, it is a mess. Anyhoo, I agree that we need proper legislation for both in order to avoid the fear every election cycle. It's nerve wracking.

Ahhh mark this post that you & I actually agree on one point!

 

[MoonWater]

Date: 9/15/2008 10:44:33 PM
Author: IndyGirl22

Date: 9/15/2008 10:42:35 PM

Author: MoonWater

Date: 9/15/2008 10:36:37 PM

Author: IndyGirl22

Date: 9/15/2008 10:13:40 PM


Author: Krissie



It was a huge issue in 2004 -- so much so that it even made its way to my state''s bar exam (despite being told by BarBri that a gay marriage ban would be too ''hot button'' to be tested). It was - you guessed it - a federalism question -- although a lot of people thought it was an equal protection issue.

Haha oh good ol'' federalism; I''m sure I''ll see it on my bar exam in a few years but the context of the nation at that time will dictate how it is framed...

Goobear - Keeping my personal views on gay marriage out of this (plus, neither candidate supports it so it''s kind of moot this election). I don''t want SCOTUS to step in and legislate from the bench because it would turn into another abortion debate that is used as propaganda by both sides every election year. If there were actual laws enacted by legislative bodies instead of the judicial one people wouldn''t fear the decision being overturned everytime a new justice is appointed/confirmed like they do now with abortion.



Moonwater - As far as recognizing gay marriage in states where it is not legalized, I don''t know...that will be the big issue as more and more states choose to legally recognize it. I know it''d be a mess either way you cut it.

Yes, it is a mess. Anyhoo, I agree that we need proper legislation for both in order to avoid the fear every election cycle. It''s nerve wracking.

Ahhh mark this post that you & I agree on one point!

LOL!

 

[miraclesrule]

See, there is always a common ground.!!

Isn''t it more fun to find that and grow from there? I think so. I get all warm and fuzzy inside just thinking about it.

(Okay, maybe the wine is making me warm and fuzzy, but so are you PS''ers)

 

[Anna0499]

Date: 9/16/2008 1:55:25 AM
Author: miraclesrule
See, there is always a common ground.!!

Isn''t it more fun to find that and grow from there? I think so. I get all warm and fuzzy inside just thinking about it.

(Okay, maybe the wine is making me warm and fuzzy, but so are you PS''ers)

LOL yes, now if only our SCOTUS would stay outta the way and let the democratic process run its course!

 

[MoonWater]

Hillary Clinton: Sarah Palin Exciting But Not Vote Worthy

 

[Madam Bijoux]

This is an interesting article (sorry if it''s been linked before):

http://news.yahoo.com/s/huffpost/20080915/cm_huffpost/126468;_ylt=AmGZTb3J04cIYSHnZHcsDASs0NUE