jaredbelch
Founder's Club Member
imported post
Carpetbagger wrote:
Carpetbagger wrote:
The first dude: that's great!
-
We are now running on a new, and hopefully much-improved, server. In addition we are also on new forum software. Any move entails a lot of technical details and I suspect we will encounter a few issues as the new server goes live. Please be patient with us. It will be worth it! :) Please help by posting all issues here.
-
If you are having trouble seeing the forum then you may need to clear your browser's DNS cache. Click here for instructions on how to do that
-
Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.
McCain's VP? - Sarah Palin
- Thread starter yeahYeah
- Start date
marshaul
Campaign Veteran
imported post
SlackwareRobert wrote:
Entirely irrelevant. The baby isn't her property or the father's. The baby is its own property. The mother's body is, however, her property to do with as she sees fit. In this respect, legalized abortion is kind of like a "castle doctrine" law.
SlackwareRobert wrote:
Entirely irrelevant. The baby isn't her property or the father's. The baby is its own property. The mother's body is, however, her property to do with as she sees fit. In this respect, legalized abortion is kind of like a "castle doctrine" law.
Huck
Regular Member
imported post
Komrade Obama's campaign spokesman (Bill Burton)is already spewing the "lacks experience" bullshit.
http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2008/08/29/mccain-camp-hits-back-at-palin-inexperience-charge/
She's been a state Govermor for over a year and a half and has a lot of accomplishments to her credit. Obama and Biden cant even approach matching her in that regard.Palin's far, far,more qualified to run the country than Obama, and Biden combined will ever be. The only thing Obama and Biden ever ran is their mouths.
Komrade Obama's campaign spokesman (Bill Burton)is already spewing the "lacks experience" bullshit.
http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2008/08/29/mccain-camp-hits-back-at-palin-inexperience-charge/
She's been a state Govermor for over a year and a half and has a lot of accomplishments to her credit. Obama and Biden cant even approach matching her in that regard.Palin's far, far,more qualified to run the country than Obama, and Biden combined will ever be. The only thing Obama and Biden ever ran is their mouths.
deepdiver
Campaign Veteran
imported post
compmanio365 wrote:
compmanio365 wrote:
I think that pretty sums it up.
XD-GEM
Campaign Veteran
imported post
Many of the peopleI work with are fairly left-leaning, and one of them asked me if I thought McCain had bungled by selecting somone "unknown." I replied that she was fairly well known in conservative circles and had been mentioned several months back as a sort of female version of Bobby Juindal. I told them that this decision will sit well with most of the conservative base and will influence many moderates McCain's way.
Look at it this way, we now have a choice between a Liberal-Liberal ticket and a Moderate-Conservative ticket. The Moderate-Conservative ticket will more than likely prevail.
And for gun enthusiasts, who can resist an "M & P" ticket?
Many of the peopleI work with are fairly left-leaning, and one of them asked me if I thought McCain had bungled by selecting somone "unknown." I replied that she was fairly well known in conservative circles and had been mentioned several months back as a sort of female version of Bobby Juindal. I told them that this decision will sit well with most of the conservative base and will influence many moderates McCain's way.
Look at it this way, we now have a choice between a Liberal-Liberal ticket and a Moderate-Conservative ticket. The Moderate-Conservative ticket will more than likely prevail.
And for gun enthusiasts, who can resist an "M & P" ticket?
deepdiver
Campaign Veteran
imported post
M&P Ticket! I like it!
The best "new slogan" I have seen today:
POW/WOW '08
Edit: But M&P Ticket runs a competitive 2nd
M&P Ticket! I like it!
The best "new slogan" I have seen today:
POW/WOW '08
Edit: But M&P Ticket runs a competitive 2nd
yeahYeah
Regular Member
imported post
McCain had the audacity of change.
The dems dont know how to handle this. they are scared!
McCain had the audacity of change.
The dems dont know how to handle this. they are scared!
Armed
Regular Member
imported post
yeahYeah wrote:
yeahYeah wrote:
I've been listening to the news all afternoon. It is clear the Dems have their panties twisted into a knot over Palin. I'm rather enjoying this...
yeahYeah
Regular Member
imported post
same here...they were ready for Romney who was an easy target...
same here...they were ready for Romney who was an easy target...
Forty-five
Regular Member
imported post
A young male democrat with whom I work came into my office this afternoon and said "I hear you like that crazy woman from Alaska". When I asked him about her, he ashamedly admitted that he had never heard of her. The democrats like to portray themselves as the party of diversity and tolerance; however, they are neither. Merely elitist hypocrites.
A young male democrat with whom I work came into my office this afternoon and said "I hear you like that crazy woman from Alaska". When I asked him about her, he ashamedly admitted that he had never heard of her. The democrats like to portray themselves as the party of diversity and tolerance; however, they are neither. Merely elitist hypocrites.
Armed
Regular Member
imported post
So true Forty-Five. And here's the part I'm really enjoying... almost anything they use to criticize Palin can be turned against them for the exact same reason.
Immediately, they criticized her for her lack of experience. Like... Obama has .... uh... well... 50 actual working days in the senate before he announced his run for the presidency. But Palin's 2 years as Governor, the CEO of Alaska is meaningless. Because after all, she's just a small town girl from some backwoods, God-foresaken piece of...... uh... well, you know... like those bitter heartland Americans who cling to their God and Guns. Nowhasn't Obama had enough difficulty trying to pry both of his feet out of his mouth over comments like that?
Ahh,, I can't wait to watch her square off against Biden.I'll bet she's gonna rip him a new @$$hole!
So true Forty-Five. And here's the part I'm really enjoying... almost anything they use to criticize Palin can be turned against them for the exact same reason.
Immediately, they criticized her for her lack of experience. Like... Obama has .... uh... well... 50 actual working days in the senate before he announced his run for the presidency. But Palin's 2 years as Governor, the CEO of Alaska is meaningless. Because after all, she's just a small town girl from some backwoods, God-foresaken piece of...... uh... well, you know... like those bitter heartland Americans who cling to their God and Guns. Nowhasn't Obama had enough difficulty trying to pry both of his feet out of his mouth over comments like that?
Ahh,, I can't wait to watch her square off against Biden.I'll bet she's gonna rip him a new @$$hole!
imported post
marshaul wrote:
I rather have it legal, where people can go to a safe clinic. Not a back ally with a coat hanger or vacuum cleaner. And in a lot of cases Canada.
See what BLOWS my mind, is that the pro-choice; is directly tied to religion. They do not believe in birth control, morning after pill etc. So basically they are telling their kids this " Don't have sex until your married (HAHA yeah right, who would marry someone before knowing how they were in the sack?) and if you do have sex, your screwed. Because we (the parents) don't believe in contraceptives. The whole teaching of absitence is a joke. And those who support it, and more than likely hyprocrites.
marshaul wrote:
Rode vs. Wade will never change. They fought their ass off to get it passed, and will make damn sure the law stands.
I rather have it legal, where people can go to a safe clinic. Not a back ally with a coat hanger or vacuum cleaner. And in a lot of cases Canada.
See what BLOWS my mind, is that the pro-choice; is directly tied to religion. They do not believe in birth control, morning after pill etc. So basically they are telling their kids this " Don't have sex until your married (HAHA yeah right, who would marry someone before knowing how they were in the sack?) and if you do have sex, your screwed. Because we (the parents) don't believe in contraceptives. The whole teaching of absitence is a joke. And those who support it, and more than likely hyprocrites.
Tomahawk
Regular Member
imported post
impulse418 wrote:
impulse418 wrote:
So true! (sorry couldn't resist)
like_the_roman
Regular Member
imported post
One does not need to be religious to be against abortion. I am a nonbeliever and I believe abortion is morally wrong.
I'm against taking human life except in self-defense. A child in the womb is by the definition of biology*, a living human being, and it deserves all the same legal protection as you or I.
My biggest problem with Roe v. Wade is that it gives the child no due process. When the government accuses someone of a capital crime in my state, a jury must decide whether or not the person is guilty or not, and if they are, whether or not to apply the death penalty (I'm not saying I agree with the death penalty, but that's another post.) With criminals, a reason has to exist in order to put them to death.
A child gets no such rights under Roe v. Wade. A promiscuous woman can have multiple one night stands and can simply eliminate her "problem" at the nearest clinic if it becomes "inconvenient" to her social life. At the very least, when a woman wants to get an abortion, she should go in front of a judge and/or jury and show good reason (i.e. mental illness, being a victim of sexual assault etc.) why the child has to be put to death.
*By "the definition of biology" I mean it matches biological criteria for something to be considered alive:
- it reacts/adapts to its environment
- it obtains/uses energy
- it grows/matures
- it is made of cells and can eventually reproduce
One does not need to be religious to be against abortion. I am a nonbeliever and I believe abortion is morally wrong.
I'm against taking human life except in self-defense. A child in the womb is by the definition of biology*, a living human being, and it deserves all the same legal protection as you or I.
My biggest problem with Roe v. Wade is that it gives the child no due process. When the government accuses someone of a capital crime in my state, a jury must decide whether or not the person is guilty or not, and if they are, whether or not to apply the death penalty (I'm not saying I agree with the death penalty, but that's another post.) With criminals, a reason has to exist in order to put them to death.
A child gets no such rights under Roe v. Wade. A promiscuous woman can have multiple one night stands and can simply eliminate her "problem" at the nearest clinic if it becomes "inconvenient" to her social life. At the very least, when a woman wants to get an abortion, she should go in front of a judge and/or jury and show good reason (i.e. mental illness, being a victim of sexual assault etc.) why the child has to be put to death.
*By "the definition of biology" I mean it matches biological criteria for something to be considered alive:
- it reacts/adapts to its environment
- it obtains/uses energy
- it grows/matures
- it is made of cells and can eventually reproduce
marshaul
Campaign Veteran
imported post
like_the_roman wrote:
For a nonreligious person, you are very moralistic, presumptive, and generally narrow-minded. Let me get this straight -- any woman who desires an abortion must be promiscuous, irresponsible, inconsiderate of the futures of her children, and basically just wants to murder her children so she has table conversation to improve her social life?
The reality is, of course, that most women who have abortions are nothing like the woman you've described above. Abortion isn't something we should presume to judge so moralistically and presumptively. Many women who have abortions do so not out of disregard for their child, but out of consideration for possible future children they may have.
I'll go back to my "castle doctrine" example. A trespasser doesn't get due process, because the property owner whose rights he is violating isn't the government, or a court. Neither is a woman. The same way castle doctrine relies on property owners to not invite people over to their house, murder them, and claim it was defense of property, legalized abortion relies on the mothers to not intentionally get pregnant for the purpose of murdering their children. It works most of the time. Does it work always? No. But that's the price of liberty.
I would rather the rough & tumble of liberty than the safety of tyranny.
like_the_roman wrote:
For a nonreligious person, you are very moralistic, presumptive, and generally narrow-minded. Let me get this straight -- any woman who desires an abortion must be promiscuous, irresponsible, inconsiderate of the futures of her children, and basically just wants to murder her children so she has table conversation to improve her social life?
The reality is, of course, that most women who have abortions are nothing like the woman you've described above. Abortion isn't something we should presume to judge so moralistically and presumptively. Many women who have abortions do so not out of disregard for their child, but out of consideration for possible future children they may have.
I'll go back to my "castle doctrine" example. A trespasser doesn't get due process, because the property owner whose rights he is violating isn't the government, or a court. Neither is a woman. The same way castle doctrine relies on property owners to not invite people over to their house, murder them, and claim it was defense of property, legalized abortion relies on the mothers to not intentionally get pregnant for the purpose of murdering their children. It works most of the time. Does it work always? No. But that's the price of liberty.
I would rather the rough & tumble of liberty than the safety of tyranny.
TheMrMitch
Regular Member
imported post
Sarah is purty. Ah lub her.
NOW.....McCain hit it outta the ballpark with his choice of VP. He did good. Period. They will win.
Hildebeast.....I'd love to know what she's feeling right now. ----> :banghead:
Sarah is purty. Ah lub her.
NOW.....McCain hit it outta the ballpark with his choice of VP. He did good. Period. They will win.
Hildebeast.....I'd love to know what she's feeling right now. ----> :banghead:
Forty-five
Regular Member
imported post
Armed wrote:
Armed wrote:
Exactly. And she has Executive Branch experience as Mayor followed by Governor. Executive Branch leaders make more meaningful decisions in one day then do US Senators like Obama. His mere 3 years in the US Senate doesn't mean squat when compared with her 2 years as governor. In Obama's 3 years as Senator, much of which he has spent running for president, he listened to and gave speeches. Governors, like Palin, make significant decisions affecting thousands of people every day. She is also the head of the Alaska National Guard and also served on the Alaska Oil and Gas Conservation Commission. If the media weren't so biased, this election would be a slam dunk. I still think we will win, but it may be close. I have already contacted the McCain campaign to get my McCain/Palin bumper stickers.
like_the_roman
Regular Member
imported post
marshaul wrote:
Great way to start a discussion - insult the person who disagrees with you.
Besides, since when is being "moralistic" a bad thing? Without some kind of universally recognized morals life would look like something out of Lord of the Flies than civilization.
The Alan Guttmacher Institute, founded by Planned Parenthood to collect data on reproductive health, came out with two studies in 1987 and 2004 that show women had more abortions for social reasons than for medical reasons. About 98% of abortions in the United States are 'elective' - meaning there is no medical reason to have them. About 25% of those were due to financial hardship. The rest of the abortions were performed merely because the woman found the child too inconvenient to let it live.
http://tinyurl.com/uldr
If women actually did any consideration on the subject they might have realized that very often sex (even with protection) results in pregnancy, and that the most effective way to avoid that is to not have sex.
1. By engaging in an act that creates life, the mother and the father have essentially entered into a contract to support and protect the resulting child from harm until the child is able to leave from their care.
2. A child is a human being from the point of conception, because the fetus is scientifically recognized as "alive" from the point of fertilization. It reacts and adapts to the environment, it obtains and uses energy, it grows and matures.
3. Homicide is an act of aggression against another person resulting in death.
4. The right of a woman to control her own body does not allow her to commit acts of aggression against others. There is never a right to kill a child resulting from a sexual act unless the act itself was non-consensual, or the pregnancy would somehow result in the death of the mother.
Exactly. I believe in liberty and justice for all. That includes children too.
marshaul wrote:
Great way to start a discussion - insult the person who disagrees with you.
Besides, since when is being "moralistic" a bad thing? Without some kind of universally recognized morals life would look like something out of Lord of the Flies than civilization.
The Alan Guttmacher Institute, founded by Planned Parenthood to collect data on reproductive health, came out with two studies in 1987 and 2004 that show women had more abortions for social reasons than for medical reasons. About 98% of abortions in the United States are 'elective' - meaning there is no medical reason to have them. About 25% of those were due to financial hardship. The rest of the abortions were performed merely because the woman found the child too inconvenient to let it live.
http://tinyurl.com/uldr
If women actually did any consideration on the subject they might have realized that very often sex (even with protection) results in pregnancy, and that the most effective way to avoid that is to not have sex.
1. By engaging in an act that creates life, the mother and the father have essentially entered into a contract to support and protect the resulting child from harm until the child is able to leave from their care.
2. A child is a human being from the point of conception, because the fetus is scientifically recognized as "alive" from the point of fertilization. It reacts and adapts to the environment, it obtains and uses energy, it grows and matures.
3. Homicide is an act of aggression against another person resulting in death.
4. The right of a woman to control her own body does not allow her to commit acts of aggression against others. There is never a right to kill a child resulting from a sexual act unless the act itself was non-consensual, or the pregnancy would somehow result in the death of the mother.
Exactly. I believe in liberty and justice for all. That includes children too.
vote_no
Regular Member
imported post
like_the_roman wrote:
Wait.
like_the_roman wrote:
And smatterings of cells that look like this! If this embryo could talk, I'm sure it'd tell you not to kill it. DESTROYING THIS IS MURDER. No different than shoving an ice pick in your neighbor!
Wait.
compmanio365
Regular Member
imported post
Guys, this is NOT THE PLACE for this off topic discussion.......let it go or take it to PMs.....don't get this thread locked.
Guys, this is NOT THE PLACE for this off topic discussion.......let it go or take it to PMs.....don't get this thread locked.