NationStates Jolt Archive

Palin's daughter is pregnant. Bwahahaha. I guess having guns around shouldn't be the top of the list for keeping your family together.

And her 17 year old daughter's pregnancy is relevant to SP's qualifications to be VP how? Do we get to laugh at you when your 17 year old pops up pregnant too?

Meh you would be amazed what a nice quiet orderly house youd probably have if you knew Dad was packing heat.
Would you really want children raised under the threat of being shot?

Palin's daughter is pregnant. Bwahahaha. I guess having guns around shouldn't be the top of the list for keeping your family together.

Wait-(this is why I hate several threads on the same damn subject), is this a new rumor or has the rumor that Trig is actually Bristol's baby and not Sarah's morphed into this? Me and Barringtonia (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=564718&page=2) had a discussion about the latter-it seems like bullshit. First of all, the 'damning' photo of Bristol's 'bump' is actually from 2006. As I discussed with Barringtonia, I don't remember the rest of what I had seen, but the ultimate conclusion was 'bullshit.' This is, I believe, a 'Madrasa' class rumor.


EDIT: Ah, I see, new information from Palin herself...Stand by, I'm catching myself up, no need to link.

Republicans have been arguing for decades that teen pregnancy and homosexuality are both issues for families. They've been claiming it's liberal values that create that problem.

The last two VP picks have had a pregnant teen and a lesbian for a daughter. Is it possible, just possible, that homosexuality has nothing to do with what you teach your children (other than them living better lives if you teach them to love themselves as they are) and that abstinence only education doesn't work?

Is it possible, just possible, that the best thing for children is education so they're fully prepared for their lives? Not according to the GOP and yet...

And her 17 year old daughter's pregnancy is relevant to SP's qualifications to be VP how? Do we get to laugh at you when your 17 year old pops up pregnant too?
See my above post. It undermines yet another of their arguments.

I have no problem with a 17-year-old raising a child, if that's how things turn out. My sister got pregnant slightly younger than Bristol and her children are awesome kids and she's been with the father for 20 years now.

Republicans have been attacking families like my sister's, families like Bristol's will be, and people like Cheney's daughter since Republicans came into existence. Let's call it Karma.

Republicans have been arguing for decades that teen pregnancy and homosexuality are both issues for families. They've been claiming it's liberal values that create that problem.

The last two VP picks have had a pregnant teen and a lesbian for a daughter. Is it possible, just possible, that homosexuality has nothing to do with what you teach your children (other than them living better lives if you teach them to love themselves as they are) and that abstinence only education doesn't work?

Is it possible, just possible, that the best thing for children is education so they're fully prepared for their lives? Not according to the GOP and yet...

The question is, how will that play out in the election?

The question is, how will that play out in the election?

It means they're going to have to steer WIDELY clear of promoting abstinence-only education. That, in and of itself, is an excellent thing.

It means they're going to have to steer WIDELY clear of promoting abstinence-only education. That, in and of itself, is an excellent thing.

The problem is, they MIGHT on the knowledge that Democrats won't be able to attack the daughter of McCain's Vice-Miss-Alaska Nominee.

A blogger dug up Sarah Palin's responses to a questionaire (http://eagleforumalaska.blogspot.com/2006/07/2006-gubernatorial-candidate.html) given while she was running for governer in 2006. Do you really want somebody this ignorant running for VP?

My bold. Even a non-American like myself knows that 'under God' was added in the 1950s.
Wowie-zowie. From the link:

Palin on abortion:
SP: I am pro-life. With the exception of a doctor’s determination that the mother’s life would end if the pregnancy continued. I believe that no matter what mistakes we make as a society, we cannot condone ending an innocent’s life.
She's not just "pro-life," she is firmly anti-choice and condones the elimination basic human rights for women. Excellent. I also notice she goes for that typical anti-choice bull of referring to fetuses as "innocent." I'd like to ask her who she thinks is guilty by comparison, and of what.

On parental authority:

SP: Yes. Parents should have the ultimate control over what their children are taught.

SP: No, again, parents know better than government what is best for their children.

SP: Within Alaska law, I support parents deciding what is the best education venue for their child.

SP: 1. Creating an atmosphere where parents feel welcome to choose the venues of education for their children.

So, she believes parents ALWAYS know better than the government what's best for their children? Does that extend to junkie parents who might opt to keep their kids out of school so they can have them around to buy drugs for mom and dad? How about abusive parents who might keep kids out of school so they can beat and molest them? How about parents who only want their children to learn that the US is run by a black-jewish-muslim international cartel that wants to wipe out the white race and that's why they have to learn how to use assault weapons and blow up buildings and kill FBI agents on sight? Or how about the right of undocumented aliens to keep their kids out of the eye of the law -- does she support that? Or here's one -- the right of gay parents to choose to send their kids to a school that won't teach them that gays don't have equal rights with heteros? How would Gov. Palin feel about that?

I wonder also, how does she square believing the government should not force parents to send their kids to any given school -- or to school at all, or even to educate them at all -- with her belief that the government should force people to become parents in the first place (by her opposition to abortion)? Just where does the government's ability to interfere with family decisions begin and end in her weird little mind?

On supporting abstinence programs as sex ed:
SP: Yes, the explicit sex-ed programs will not find my support.

Oh, so she's not just in favor of teaching abstinence, she is against teaching actual information about sex.

And how does she square this with her insistence that parents know best what their kids should be learning? Shouldn't she have answered this question by saying she thinks it's up to parents and that she'd support whatever they want? I guess parents only know best when they agree with her, eh?

On gay marriage:
SP: No, I believe spousal benefits are reserved for married citizens as defined in our constitution.
Ah, it seems all her cant about how she believes in equal rights for gays is a lot of horseshit, since she would deny spousal benefits to co-habiting couples who are not married AND she would deny gays the right to marry according to what she has said elsewhere. Oh, and apparently, she doesn't like hetero unmarried couples, either.

On the pledge:
SP: Not on your life. If it was good enough for the founding fathers, its good enough for me and I’ll fight in defense of our Pledge of Allegiance.

As others have pointed out -- she's an idiot.

On family issues:
SP: 1. Creating an atmosphere where parents feel welcome to choose the venues of education for their children.
2. Preserving the definition of “marriage” as defined in our constitution.
3. Cracking down on the things that harm family life: gangs, drug use, and infringement of our liberties including attacks on our 2nd Amendment rights.
In other words, she thinks it is vital for the interests of families for the government to have no standard of education, to make it easier for abusive parents to keep their kids out of the reach of authorities, to deny rights to gays, and make sure Americans can fill their houses up with guns (because you can't be a parent without a gun).

And McCain says THIS is ready to be president. Please, gods, give me a fucking break.

And her 17 year old daughter's pregnancy is relevant to SP's qualifications to be VP how? Do we get to laugh at you when your 17 year old pops up pregnant too?
It's relevant to her preference for abstinence-teaching rather than sex education. Seems the lessons didn't take with her own child.

Wait, what part of our constitution defines marriage? Or is she talking about Alaska's?

EDIT: Okay, I really need to look shit up before posting, she's talking about Alaska's constitution-
CONSTITUTION

Marriage

To be valid or recognized in this State, a marriage may exist only between one man and one woman.

(Alaska Constitution Article I, Section 25)

For fuck's sake...

Wait, what part of our constitution defines marriage? Or is she talking about Alaska's?
Does it matter? I'd be surprised if she'd actually read either.

The problem is, they MIGHT on the knowledge that Democrats won't be able to attack the daughter of McCain's Vice-Miss-Alaska Nominee.

The press can.

Wait, what part of our constitution defines marriage? Or is she talking about Alaska's?

EDIT: Okay, I really need to look shit up before posting, she's talking about Alaska's constitution-
CONSTITUTION

Marriage

To be valid or recognized in this State, a marriage may exist only between one man and one woman.

(Alaska Constitution Article I, Section 25)

For fuck's sake...

I thought that it was an amendment to their constitution.

Does it matter? I'd be surprised if she'd actually read either.
If you check my edit it matters because it's actually in Alaska's...apparently...which is a revelation that should always be followed by swearing...

The press can.

Do bear in mind that the Republicans have been claiming the press favors Obama for quite a while now... But, hopefully, you're right. I have errands to run, laters.

I thought that it was an amendment to their constitution.
Obviously I don't know the history of it since I literally just found out about it, but I imagine it pretty much has to be-I don't imagine it being an issue when Alaska's constitution was written. I don't know how they notate additions, but it was still be a part of theirs even if it was amended later in order to foster conservative votes.

Yeah, it was amended in '98. She supported the amendment.

http://ltgov.state.ak.us/constitution.php?section=amendments

Do bear in mind that the Republicans have been claiming the press favors Obama for quite a while now... But, hopefully, you're right. I have errands to run, laters.

They can claim that all they like. People still listen watch the news and hear the various soundbites. It will be a bad move on their part to focus on abstinence-only. It's another argument they would have used that is now off the table.

I love how when it's a Republican candidate, incidentally, that it becomes a non-issue to the Christian right. I can't imagine if it turned out that Biden's teenaged daughter were pregnant that they would just wave it away.

Yeah, it was amended in '98. She supported the amendment.

http://ltgov.state.ak.us/constitution.php?section=amendments

Y'see, I think THAT'S why she ended up as a runner-up to Miss Alaska. When they asked her what change she'd perform on the world, instead of "World Peace", she went "Gays, whose equal rights I support, being burned at the stake.".

They can claim that all they like. People still listen watch the news and hear the various soundbites. It will be a bad move on their part to focus on abstinence-only. It's another argument they would have used that is now off the table.

I love how when it's a Republican candidate, incidentally, that it becomes a non-issue to the Christian right. I can't imagine if it turned out that Biden's teenaged daughter were pregnant that they would just wave it away.

Actually the only dodgy thing thats emerged so far is the fact they're getting married. Each unto their own, but 17 is a bit young, lets face it........

It's relevant to her preference for abstinence-teaching rather than sex education. Seems the lessons didn't take with her own child.
Here's why she's going to come out looking like a hero picked on by the mean ol' lefties and their blogs of hate-

The rumor's that Trig was Bristol's baby had circulated, from Daily Kos of all places, for a few days first, and this was a reaction to their 'shameful rumor mill.' There's the debunking (http://www.thewashingtonnote.com/archives/2008/09/looks_like_sara/), the outrage (http://michellemalkin.com/2008/09/01/daily-kos-tries-to-cancel-pds-alert/) (from someone who accused another of being a muslim for wearing a scarf, I believe...), more outrage (http://townhall.com/blog/g/9b3375c7-6a27-4b5e-9204-b267282a1ce1) and then the shock, shock I say- (http://www.reuters.com/article/topNews/idUSN2944356420080901?feedType=RSS&feedName=topNews&rpc=22&sp=true)
A senior McCain campaign official said the McCain camp was appalled that these rumors had not only been spread around liberal blog sites and partisan Democrats, but also were the subject of heightened interest from mainstream news media.

"The despicable rumors that have been spread by liberal blogs, some even with Barack Obama's name in them, is a real anchor around the Democratic ticket, pulling them down in the mud in a way that certainly juxtaposes themselves against their 'campaign of change,'" a senior aide said.

Now, I just heard about this last night, and I only saw it bounced around blogs and from the diary entry from someone apparently no one at Daily Kos knew (the diarist has no history) and the only thing close to mainstream interest I saw was 'Grudge Report' saying that 'lefty bloggers' were going after her youngest son. So then today Palin comes out with the revelation that Palin really is pregnant, it pails in comparison to the 'nasty' rumors that the mean ol' lefties have been spreading about her family.

Conspiracy theory-that the diarist on Kos is actually a plant to create a henius rumor to make the announcement of Bristol's pregnancy dwarfed by the 'lie.'

It doesn't matter, the narrative is now of a heroic family vs. the mean old Lefty 'nutroots' who so crassly went after a teenage daughter. That's how it will play.

Remember how persistent it was that MoveOn.org support comparisons of Bush to Hitler because a user had contributed an ad in an open call that did so, regardless of the fact that MoveOn deleted the ad as not fitting with their standards. This will be orders of magnitude larger.

Palin on abortion:

She's not just "pro-life," she is firmly anti-choice and condones the elimination basic human rights for women. Excellent.
Is there some magical way to be pro-life without being anti-choice? There is nothing special about her abortion views that marks her as different from the 50% or so other Americans who classify themselves as pro-life.
Whether you agree with them or not, it is folly to pretend that Pro-Lifers are the deranged fringe
I also notice she goes for that typical anti-choice bull of referring to fetuses as "innocent." I'd like to ask her who she thinks is guilty by comparison, and of what.
Axe murderers, thieves, rapists, etc. You know, people who have "committed" some "moral infraction" for which "society" deems they may be justly "punished."
How about parents who only want their children to learn that the US is run by a black-jewish-muslim international cartel that wants to wipe out the white race and that's why they have to learn how to use assault weapons and blow up buildings and kill FBI agents on sight?
1. Parents don't need to send their kids to school for that.
2. Yes. Legally, parents have the right to teach their children anything they want.
Or here's one -- the right of gay parents to choose to send their kids to a school that won't teach them that gays don't have equal rights with heteros? How would Gov. Palin feel about that?
Well, her statement that parents should have the right to choose their education venues would imply that she would support such a move.
I wonder also, how does she square believing the government should not force parents to send their kids to any given school -- or to school at all, or even to educate them at all -- with her belief that the government should force people to become parents in the first place (by her opposition to abortion)? Just where does the government's ability to interfere with family decisions begin and end in her weird little mind?
In her "weird little mind" abortion isn't a family decision, but a matter of right and wrong.
And just where does she say that parents should have the right to prevent the education of their children? In fact, she even says that she doesn't want to "raise or lower the mandatory age of education," which sort of implies she supports the current K-12 system. Any conclusions about her not want children to go "to school at all" are entirely out of your own weird little mind.
On gay marriage:

Ah, it seems all her cant about how she believes in equal rights for gays is a lot of horseshit, since she would deny spousal benefits to co-habiting couples who are not married AND she would deny gays the right to marry according to what she has said elsewhere. Oh, and apparently, she doesn't like hetero unmarried couples, either.
As someone pointed out already, she was right. Gay marriage is disallowed by the Constitution of Alaska, hence, one cannot have a gay spouse, hence, spousal benefits are reserved for heterosexuals.
More to the point, it wasn't a general question on gay marriage she was answering, it was a specific question about a specific ruling relating to state employees. You might have noticed this had you even bothered to read the question:
Do you support the Alaska Supreme Court’s ruling that spousal benefits for state employees should be given to same-sex couples? Why or why not?
On family issues:

In other words, she thinks it is vital for the interests of families for the government to have no standard of education,
Not what she said. In the questionnaire she uses the word "venues" twice. Once in the part you selected, and another one here:
8. Do you support parental choice in the spending of state educational dollars?
SP: Within Alaska law, I support parents deciding what is the best education venue for their child.
Which would imply a support for a voucher system, or something similar.
to make it easier for abusive parents to keep their kids out of the reach of authorities,
I have no clue where this came from, but it sure smells like the interior of someone's ass.
to deny rights to gays,
And this makes her different from every other politician in or attempting to enter the US Government how? Even Obama has gone on the record as saying "My religious beliefs say that marriage is something sanctified between a man and a woman," and the best he supports is this wishy-washy Civil Unions nonsense.
and make sure Americans can fill their houses up with guns (because you can't be a parent without a gun).
McCain feels the same way, so what's wrong with him having a like-minded VP?
And McCain says THIS is ready to be president. Please, gods, give me a fucking break.
I think you need to take one before your reading comprehension and blood pressure get any worse.

Here's why she's going to come out looking like a hero picked on by the mean ol' lefties and their blogs of hate-

The rumor's that Trig was Bristol's baby had circulated, from Daily Kos of all places, for a few days first, and this was a reaction to their 'shameful rumor mill.' There's the debunking (http://www.thewashingtonnote.com/archives/2008/09/looks_like_sara/), the outrage (http://michellemalkin.com/2008/09/01/daily-kos-tries-to-cancel-pds-alert/) (from someone who accused another of being a muslim for wearing a scarf, I believe...), more outrage (http://townhall.com/blog/g/9b3375c7-6a27-4b5e-9204-b267282a1ce1) and then the shock, shock I say- (http://www.reuters.com/article/topNews/idUSN2944356420080901?feedType=RSS&feedName=topNews&rpc=22&sp=true)


Now, I just heard about this last night, and I only saw it bounced around blogs and from the diary entry from someone apparently no one at Daily Kos knew (the diarist has no history) and the only thing close to mainstream interest I saw was 'Grudge Report' saying that 'lefty bloggers' were going after her youngest son. So then today Palin comes out with the revelation that Palin really is pregnant, it pails in comparison to the 'nasty' rumors that the mean ol' lefties have been spreading about her family.

Conspiracy theory-that the diarist on Kos is actually a plant to create a henius rumor to make the announcement of Bristol's pregnancy dwarfed by the 'lie.'

It doesn't matter, the narrative is now of a heroic family vs. the mean old Lefty 'nutroots' who so crassly went after a teenage daughter. That's how it will play.

Remember how persistent it was that MoveOn.org support comparisons of Bush to Hitler because a user had contributed an ad in an open call that did so, regardless of the fact that MoveOn deleted the ad as not fitting with their standards. This will be orders of magnitude larger.
This is why I HATE the blog rumor mill. It only means that the Dems will have to be extremely careful in how they deal with it. "High road" and all that.

This is why I HATE the blog rumor mill. It only means that the Dems will have to be extremely careful in how they deal with it. "High road" and all that.

Tell me about it. I had that 'no good will come of this' feeling immediately when I saw the first story.

Bloggers and netfolk like to crow about how they 'get' the stories that the 'mainstream media' misses, but they fail to mention that they get it by spraying a fire hose of shit that occasionally has a kernel of corn in it. It's the journalistic equivalent of strip mining for a story and has the same corrosive effect.

Is there some magical way to be pro-life without being anti-choice?
Nothing magical about it. There are plenty of people who oppose abortion but also oppose the criminalization of it.

There is nothing special about her abortion views that marks her as different from the 50% or so other Americans who classify themselves as pro-life.
Whether you agree with them or not, it is folly to pretend that Pro-Lifers are the deranged fringe
This is why I do not use the misleading and self-serving title "pro-lifers" to describe the people I oppose on this issue. I call them "anti-choicers" beause (A) it's what they are, and (B) it specifies who I'm talking about since not all pro-lifers are anti-choice.

Axe murderers, thieves, rapists, etc. You know, people who have "committed" some "moral infraction" for which "society" deems they may be justly "punished."
You live inside her head and, thus, are able to answer for her?

Or are you her?

I can't think of any other reason why you would pipe up with your opinion when I said that I would like to ask her for her opinion.

1. Parents don't need to send their kids to school for that.
2. Yes. Legally, parents have the right to teach their children anything they want.
Again you answer for her? And your answer is that the government has no need to be aware of insurgents in the country? Interesting. Perfectly valid pov for someone NOT in the government, but for someone who IS? Yes, interesting.

Well, her statement that parents should have the right to choose their education venues would imply that she would support such a move.
Would it imply that?

In her "weird little mind" abortion isn't a family decision, but a matter of right and wrong.
And just where does she say that parents should have the right to prevent the education of their children? In fact, she even says that she doesn't want to "raise or lower the mandatory age of education," which sort of implies she supports the current K-12 system. Any conclusions about her not want children to go "to school at all" are entirely out of your own weird little mind.
And more guesstimations from our psychic friend. It's wonderful how well you understand her mind. Do you actually have any action or statement from her on which to base your understanding, or are you just making this up? All of my comments were based on the content of her statements in the context of yet more of her statements. What are your comments based on?

As someone pointed out already, she was right. Gay marriage is disallowed by the Constitution of Alaska, hence, one cannot have a gay spouse, hence, spousal benefits are reserved for heterosexuals.
More to the point, it wasn't a general question on gay marriage she was answering, it was a specific question about a specific ruling relating to state employees. You might have noticed this had you even bothered to read the question:
What I notice most is that this is not what I was talking about, which you might have noticed if you had bothered to read what I wrote before jumping in with your knee-jerk defenses of her.

What I was doing with that was setting her stated views and actual political actions in re gay rights against what she says now are her opinions about gays.

Not what she said. In the questionnaire she uses the word "venues" twice. Once in the part you selected, and another one here:

Which would imply a support for a voucher system, or something similar.
More guesswork...

I have no clue where this came from, but it sure smells like the interior of someone's ass.
And personal ridicule for spice.

If you had bothered to read the earlier comments you "responded" to, you would know where that came from because it is in the list of questions about how far she takes her notion of parents knowing what's best.

But, hey, thanks for providing evidence that you did not really read the arguments you are attacking.

And this makes her different from every other politician in or attempting to enter the US Government how? Even Obama has gone on the record as saying "My religious beliefs say that marriage is something sanctified between a man and a woman," and the best he supports is this wishy-washy Civil Unions nonsense.
Which is something I hold against him.

And yeah, actually, surprising as it may seem, NOT every politician attempting to enter the US government believes the best way to do it is with promises of denying rights to some segment of the population.

McCain feels the same way, so what's wrong with him having a like-minded VP?
Not a thing. Two peas in a pod, very cozy together. Makes it easier to oppose both of them.

I think you need to take one before your reading comprehension and blood pressure get any worse.
And a personal insult plus condescension for that closing flourish. Good show. You've really made me look like a fool. Heh.

And more guesstimations from our psychic friend. It's wonderful how well you understand her mind.
For a moment I considered wasting more time writing a lengthy response to your post, but I decided to settle for pointing out the extreme irony in your accusing me of "guesstimations." Most of your accusations have little or no basis in her comments, but seem to come from the paranoid way you imagine all conservatives feel.
And a personal insult plus condescension for that closing flourish. Good show. You've really made me look like a fool. Heh.
I don't need to make you look like a fool.

This is why I HATE the blog rumor mill.

I've always felt there was enough shitty writing and journalism out there, without recreating it on an amateur basis.

Is there some magical way to be pro-life without being anti-choice? There is nothing special about her abortion views that marks her as different from the 50% or so other Americans who classify themselves as pro-life.
Whether you agree with them or not, it is folly to pretend that Pro-Lifers are the deranged fringe

*snip*

As someone pointed out already, she was right. Gay marriage is disallowed by the Constitution of Alaska, hence, one cannot have a gay spouse, hence, spousal benefits are reserved for heterosexuals.

More to the point, it wasn't a general question on gay marriage she was answering, it was a specific question about a specific ruling relating to state employees. You might have noticed this had you even bothered to read the question:


*snip*

And this makes her different from every other politician in or attempting to enter the US Government how? Even Obama has gone on the record as saying "My religious beliefs say that marriage is something sanctified between a man and a woman," and the best he supports is this wishy-washy Civil Unions nonsense.

McCain feels the same way, so what's wrong with him having a like-minded VP?

I think you need to take one before your reading comprehension and blood pressure get any worse.


Um. Perhaps, if you stopped and checked your own blood pressure, then your reading comprehension and your understanding of context would both improve.

1. It is perfect possible to be "pro-life" or "anti-abortion" and still be "pro-choice." What makes one anti-choice is wanting to take the choice away from women and give it to the government.

2. Neither most Americans nor most American women hold Sarah Palin's extreme views on abortion. Go back and read her answer again. She would ONLY allow abortion when absolutely necessary to save the life of the woman. She would criminalize abortion even in cases of rape, incest, severe birth defects, or where necessary to preserve the mother's health. (The organization Palin belongs to, Feminists For Life, does not even make a clear exception in cases where abortion is necessary to save a woman's life.)

3. Palin was not "right" about benefits for same-sex partners. As referenced in the question Palin was asked, the Alaska Supreme Court had held that the state constitution REQUIRED equal benefits for same-sex employee couples. Palin is wrongly disagreeing with that decision in her answer to that question. (NOTE: The ASC decision was made long after the Alaska Constitution was amended to prohibit same-sex marriage, so that provision doesn't make Palin right.) [FWIW, pdf of that Alaska Supreme Court decision (http://mediamatters.org/rd?to=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.state.ak.us%2Fdrb%2Fsspb%2Fsupreme-court-order_10-28-05.pdf)].

4. In addition, Palin is staunchly against same-sex marriage and has actively supported efforts to ban it in Alaska. I'm not going to get into a tit-for-tat about the record of other politicians, but, no, Palin isn't just the same on this issue as everybody else -- let alone Barack Obama.

Um. Perhaps, if you stopped and checked your own blood pressure, then your reading comprehension and your understanding of context would both improve.

1. It is perfect possible to be "pro-life" or "anti-abortion" and still be "pro-choice." What makes one anti-choice is wanting to take the choice away from women and give it to the government.

2. Neither most Americans nor most American women hold Sarah Palin's extreme views on abortion. Go back and read her answer again. She would ONLY allow abortion when absolutely necessary to save the life of the woman. She would criminalize abortion even in cases of rape, incest, severe birth defects, or where necessary to preserve the mother's health. (The organization Palin belongs to, Feminists For Life, does not even make a clear exception in cases where abortion is necessary to save a woman's life.)

3. Palin was not "right" about benefits for same-sex partners. As referenced in the question Palin was asked, the Alaska Supreme Court had help that the state constitution REQUIRED equal benefits for same-sex employee couples. Palin is wrongly disagreeing with that decision in the question you reference. (NOTE: The ASC decision was made long after the Alaska Constitution was amended to prohibit same-sex marriage, so that provision doesn't make Palin right.) [FWIW, pdf of that Alaska Supreme Court decision (http://mediamatters.org/rd?to=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.state.ak.us%2Fdrb%2Fsspb%2Fsupreme-court-order_10-28-05.pdf)].

4. In addition, Palin is staunchly against same-sex marriage and has actively supported efforts to ban it in Alaska. I'm not going to get into a tit-for-tat about the record of other politicians, but, no, Palin isn't just the same on this issue as everybody else -- let alone Barack Obama.

I wouldn't however label any of that as 'insane', this kind of thinking isn't exactly in the extreme minority.

I wouldn't however label any of that as 'insane', this kind of thinking isn't exactly in the extreme minority.

Being in the extreme minority isn't a requirement for considering a view insane.

For a moment I considered wasting more time writing a lengthy response to your post, but I decided to settle for pointing out the extreme irony in your accusing me of "guesstimations." Most of your accusations have little or no basis in her comments, but seem to come from the paranoid way you imagine all conservatives feel.
And now you're channeling my thoughts, eh? I told you specifically where my comments came from. Maybe you should try reading the words on the screen instead of other people's minds.

I don't need to make you look like a fool.
That's good, because you're not very good at getting one up on people.

Is there some magical way to be pro-life without being anti-choice?

Absolutely. You can advocate increased funding for adoption and foster services. You can work towards increasing education on proper pre-birth care. You can help increase health and child care funding for uninsured mothers and fathers so that they can better support the costs of pregnancy, birth, and raising the child.

If your goal is to reduce the number of abortions, you can do a lot of things that will directly target the reasons that women have abortions, and that will reduce the number of abortions, and none of those require stripping a woman of a fundamental right. There is a strong difference between being pro-life (promoting birth and not abortion) and anti-choice (promoting the removal of the option).

Palin is firmly in the later.

Absolutely. You can advocate increased funding for adoption and foster services. You can work towards increasing education on proper pre-birth care. You can help increase health and child care funding for uninsured mothers and fathers so that they can better support the costs of pregnancy, birth, and raising the child.

If your goal is to reduce the number of abortions, you can do a lot of things that will directly target the reasons that women have abortions, and that will reduce the number of abortions, and none of those require stripping a woman of a fundamental right. There is a strong difference between being pro-life (promoting birth and not abortion) and anti-choice (promoting the removal of the option).

Palin is firmly in the later.


That's nonsense. As has been pointed out previously, although widely loathed in this forum, that Feministforlife.com group clearly advocates for increase health and child care funding for uninsured mothers and fathers so that they can better support the costs of pregnancy, birth, and raising the child. Pretending otherwise simply shows your bias.

Palin is firmly in the later.

Uhm... I'm gonna hate myself for this, but "latter". >.>

Anyways, Obama could respond by pointing out something like: "O RLY? What about the rumors that I'm a TERRORIST being floated around, McCain? Are THESE vile too?"...

That's nonsense. As has been pointed out previously, although widely loathed in this forum, that Feministforlife.com group clearly advocates for increase health and child care funding for uninsured mothers and fathers so that they can better support the costs of pregnancy, birth, and raising the child. Pretending otherwise simply shows your bias.

Who said anything about pretending otherwise? All Neo Art said was that one could go for those methods INSTEAD OF being for banning abortion altogether.

Feminists For Life want to support some of those methods, true, but they also want to ban abortion. That makes them anti-choice, no matter what the pro-life issue is. You could be anti-life and anti-choice, too. Pro-life and anti-choice are not synonymous and will never be synonymous.

I've always felt there was enough shitty writing and journalism out there, without recreating it on an amateur basis.

Well they wouldn't be amateurs if Fox hired liberal talk show hosts.