McCain VP- Sarah Palin

[RBBailey]

No baby is capable of surviving outside of the womb. They are not what-if, they are not creepy/scary, they are actually happening now. The argument still stands. If you say it is viable at one point for a certain check-list of reasons, you can expect that checklist to evolve over time at the government's whim. But if you take the stance that the human life form is when the DNA from the mother and the DNA from the father are joined together to make... a pig, no... lettuce, no... a human -- then you are in a position that is always right. The fact is, you are putting yourself in a position where, based on a set of changing circumstances or new scientific studies, you could be wrong about when life begins. My position is one that has no variables. Conception is when it happens -- Period.

Change subject:

It's not the electoral college that is the problem, it is the party system that is the problem. The electoral college can accommodate a non-party system, multiple parties, whatever. The reason we have the electoral college is because it was designed very deliberately to NOT be a direct democracy. The Democratic-Republic system we have allows for a Republic system of government that is driven by a democratic system of people's participation. It's not a mistake, it's not an error, it's not broken, but it is being suffocated by the parties. Take away the parties (which is how it was designed) and the electoral college suddenly makes all the sense in the world.

 

[jammin]

No baby is capable of surviving outside of the womb.

I have a 14 month old baby tottering around the house right now, doing just fine outside the womb. (Which is already occupied anyway.)

So I have to disagree.

But since I'm sure that's not what you meant... explain all of the preemies that survive. (Hell, explain Mrs. Palin's child... outside of the womb, born at 7 or 8 months or whatever.) Did that child not survive?

I even spelled out survival rates at different terms.

Your claim makes no sense no matter how I slice it.

They are not what-if, they are not creepy/scary, they are actually happening now. The argument still stands.

No it does not. It was all based on a definition of viable other than the one that applies here.

According to Merriam-Webster:

vi?a?ble

Function:
adjective
Etymology:
French, from Middle French, from vie life, from Latin vita ? more at vital
Date:
circa 1832

1: capable of living; especially : having attained such form and development as to be normally capable of surviving outside the mother's womb <a viable fetus>2: capable of growing or developing <viable seeds> <viable eggs>3 a: capable of working, functioning, or developing adequately <viable alternatives> b: capable of existence and development as an independent unit <the colony is now a viable state> c (1): having a reasonable chance of succeeding <a viable candidate> (2): financially sustainable <a viable enterprise>


The definition used for Roe v Wade, and that we are talking about is #1.

You were are using #2b.

If you say it is viable at one point for a certain check-list of reasons, you can expect that checklist to evolve over time at the government's whim.

The day a child is born before 14 weeks and survives, you might have an argument. I don't see it happening.

But if you take the stance that the human life form is when the DNA from the mother and the DNA from the father are joined together to make... a pig, no... lettuce, no... a human -- then you are in a position that is always right.

Yep. That is where human life begins. I'd never claim otherwise.

The fact is, you are putting yourself in a position where, based on a set of changing circumstances or new scientific studies, you could be wrong about when life begins. My position is one that has no variables. Conception is when it happens -- Period.

Yep. Life begins at conception. And viability begins when the child can survive outside of the womb. No room for error or changing circumstances on the first, and the second is pretty straightforward too.

Change subject:

It's not the electoral college that is the problem, it is the party system that is the problem. The electoral college can accommodate a non-party system, multiple parties, whatever. The reason we have the electoral college is because it was designed very deliberately to NOT be a direct democracy. The Democratic-Republic system we have allows for a Republic system of government that is driven by a democratic system of people's participation. It's not a mistake, it's not an error, it's not broken, but it is being suffocated by the parties. Take away the parties (which is how it was designed) and the electoral college suddenly makes all the sense in the world.

Agreed 100%.

 

[antichrist]

Tom, I disagree, I think it is a conflict of interest to appoint or otherwise have your spouse in an official or non-official position. Being involved in the tax code that deals with conflict of interest in non-profits and businesses, I read that this would probably break those laws -- why wouldn't those standards be appropriate for our government?

Having a family member work for you isn't automatically a conflict of interest. If it is, a lot of family owned businesses are in trouble.

Now, according to you, if she had a good reason for her husband, an unelected official, being in the meeting, that's OK. So, you would disagree with Paul on this point, and you are saying it's OK.

No, not automatically ok, nor automatically wrong. It's something that needs further information. But why was your first response, "but clinton did it", rather than, "hmmm...I didn't know that, I wonder what that's about"?

 

[antichrist]

End of Babygate.

So now it's "abstinence-gate".

 

[benlittle]

Wow, you've got that one WAY wrong. She is the one who stopped the Bridge to nowhere.

Initially, she supported it.

My point is it was a 350million joke utilizing our tax money.

 

[MarkP]

Initially, she supported it.

While campaigning and without any visibility into the cost of the project, other than what was publically available, she supported the projects of the previous administration that were in progress.

From the Citizens against Govt Waste site, Nov 21, 2006:

"Even though the Bridge to Nowhere has gone nowhere fast since Congress stripped it of its federal earmark, outgoing Alaska Governor Frank Murkowski (R) is still trying to keep the project alive.

According to the Associated Press, the lame duck governor hopes to award a $30 million contract for roadwork leading to the proposed bridge by December 1 three days before he leaves office. Incoming Republican Governor-elect Sarah Paulin supports construction of the bridge but has neither commented on the current governor’s actions nor explained how she plans to cover the cost.

~~~

In a last desperate attempt to salvage this project, Gov. Murkowski is rushing the Alaska Department of Transportation to find a contractor to begin the “Bridge to Nowhere” project before his term runs out."​

After the election and prior to taking office her transition team gave her a report on the proposal. After taking office she cancelled Murkowski’s project linkages and stopped Gravina bridge construction. The project was not totally abandoned because it had been promised for decades. They have moved to a ferry system.

So when Obama's MSM reports she supported the project they conveniently leave out the details and timelines.

 

[apg]

When I initially heard that "Palin" was McCain's choice as veep on Friday, I thought, "This could work...." Obviously, he was going after the absurdist-comedy vote, the millions of Monty Python fans on this side of the pond. (I wonder who would be appointed the Minister of Silly Walks....) But then, I thought, hey, Michael Palin *can't* be it.... Unless the repugs have totally abrogated the Constitution while we weren't looking, he can't be the VP, 'cause he wasn't born here.

Now by choosing Sarah Palin, the republican party has given up any chance of *ever* complaining about Obama's supposed lack of experience. And what was that fool on FAUX News saying Friday night? She has *lots* of foreign policy experience, since Alaska is situated up near Russia....

Later, over the weekend, as the skeletons in Sarah Palin's oh-so-small political closet began tumbling out, I wondered aloud just how many heads would become *completely* detached from their respective bodies from all the spin that would ensue.... I haven't been disappointed thus far!

I used to be appalled. Now I am merely amused....

 

[MarkP]

. . . Now by choosing Sarah Palin, the republican party has given up any chance of *ever* complaining about Obama's supposed lack of experience. . . . .

Thanks Sandy for making my following point. I hadn't hit the post button so you beat me to it.

It is interestig that the conversation is moving to the resume of the Democrat Presidential candidate vs. the resume of the Republican VP candidate. I don't think I can remember when the Presidential candidate was running against the VP candidate.

This says little about Palin but it says volumes about Obama. Obama qualifications say he should be the VP on the ticket.

 

[p m]

When I initially heard that "Palin" was McCain's choice as veep on Friday, I thought, "This could work...." Obviously, he was going after the absurdist-comedy vote, the millions of Monty Python fans on this side of the pond. (I wonder who would be appointed the Minister of Silly Walks....)

Sandy, it is the absurdist-comedy vote now - "hell with it, it can't be that bad."

On the other subject - honestly, I am puzzled about all the excitement about Palin's daughter's pregnancy. Big fucking deal - it's good to have kids when you're young, they don't come out the same way in your late 30s and mid-40s. Not necessarily while you're in high school, but it's no world tragedy, either.

 

[apg]

This says little about Palin but I says volumes about Obama. Obama qualifications say he should be the VP on the ticket.

It really, really pains me to say this, but I agree with you. (Is that one of the signs of the pending Appocalypse?) Now I've never been a fan of Obama...I always thought he was one of the Dem's potential 'rising stars', like ex-governor Mark Warner or Senator Jim Webb - two Virginia guys I *really* like, but they both knew they weren't quite yet ready for national office and had the guts to say so.

But Palin's "qualifications" for the VP spot are just so miniscule. Given McCain's obvious age and infirmities - Palin's selection might indicate dementia on his part.

As I said, I used to be appalled, now I'm merely amused....If the outcome weren't so damned serious for the nation, it would be a fun election....

 

[MarkP]

It really, really pains me to say this, but I agree with you. (Is that one of the signs of the pending Appocalypse?) Now I've never been a fan of Obama.... . .

That's twice now . . . Too bad we are several thousand miles apart, we could have some great conversations . . . over several beers.

As for Obama vs. Palin, your correct on Obama while I think you underestimate Palin.

A Tale of Two R?sum?s
Weekly Standard ^ | 2 September 2008 | Dean Barnett

Having spent over a decade as a headhunter for lawyers in another life, I've seen many r?sum?s. And every r?sum? tells a story. The stories told by Barack Obama's and Sarah Palin's r?sum?s could hardly be more different for two people of roughly the same age and aspirations. . . .

. . .

While it has become almost a clich? on the right to belittle Obama as a talker rather than a doer, his r?sum? suggests just that. Obama does have the requisite brain power to be president; it's unlikely that the intellectual demands of the job would overwhelm him. But his past work experience is unnerving. Obama had ample talent to excel at all the other positions he has held, and yet he accomplished little at each. So what would he do as president? Would his efforts in the Oval Office be as indifferent and irresolute as they've been at every other stop along his professional path? Could one imagine him making the political sacrifices and showing the fondness for bold action that characterized Harry S. Truman?

As for Palin, she lacks Obama's glittering Ivy League credentials. While that fact scandalizes vast portions of the Bos-Wash corridor, the scandalized neglect the most common purpose for an education--to develop one's abilities to such a point that one can actually begin accomplishing things. And there again is where Palin shines--she has gotten a tremendous amount done everyplace she has been.

In truth, Sarah Palin is the kind of employee virtually every enterprise seeks--the kind who gets things done. And Barack Obama is the kind of employee a company hires only when it's in the mood for taking a risk and willing to wager that the candidate's past performance isn't predictive of his future efforts.​

The Presidential race should be:

? / Obama

McCain / Palin

 

[MarkP]

The selection of Palin as the VP candidate has also exposed the culture of the Left:

Today, I am ashamed to be a DU member

I've been here a long time. Not a prolific poster, but a prolific reader. And from what I've read today, I don't belong here anymore.

Women being bashed for their right to choose having a family and a career with the support of their spouse.

Women being called sluts, bimbos and brood mares.

Women having their appearance dissected and witchhunts for compromising photos.

Innocent young girls being slandered with rumors & innuendos.

Enough. I want to win. But I don't want to win this way. And if you do, then I don't want any part of it.​

The culture represented by RAP is very similar to the culture of the >>>current<<< Democrat Party

 

[MarkP]

The 'smartest' Presidential candidate is looking pretty dumb and clueless by comparison.

Obama: I Have More Executive Experience Than Palin
Fox ^ | 9/2/08 | staff

Barack Obama contends that he is more experienced in executive matters than Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin because he has managed his presidential campaign for the past 18 months.

Speaking on a cable news channel Monday night, the Democratic presidential nominee said he is better prepared to handle a disaster like Hurricane Gustav because of his pursuit of the White House.

“Well, my understanding is that Governor Palin’s town of Wasilla has, I think, 50 employees. We’ve got 2,500 in this campaign. I think their budget is maybe $12 million a year. You know, we have a budget of about three times that just for the month. So I think that our ability to manage large systems and to execute I think has been made clear over the last couple of years,” Obama said. . . . .​

:rofl: The idiot is comparing himself to Palin, defining himself down.

McCain / Palin

? / Obama

 

[HunterAK]

“Well, my understanding is that Governor Palin’s town of Wasilla has, I think, 50 employees. We’ve got 2,500 in this campaign. I think their budget is maybe $12 million a year. You know, we have a budget of about three times that just for the month. So I think that our ability to manage large systems and to execute I think has been made clear over the last couple of years,” Obama said. . . . . [/INDENT]

Excuse me Obama, her terms as Mayor of Wasilla is long over. I believe Alaska's projected State budget for 2009 is 9 BILLION dollars. Not to mention the 11 BILLION revenue dollars from crude oil proceeds.

The first time she ran for office was in 1992 FWIW and the inexperience issue should not be as large of a concern as people are making it out to be. Again, IF, that is IF, she were to assume the role of President, her administration will have her well informed to make the best decisions for our country. She will have top notch advisors under her wing and no one is going to let her make the wrong decisions.

What do you doubters really think could happen that would be so harmful to our country if she had to step into the presidential role for a year or two?

Quite honestly, the only "controversial" articles I've seen appear on CNN are that her husband had a DWI in 1984 and her teen daughter is pregnant. UH OH!!!! She's not fit to be VP!!!

Gimme a break. That's it? and Babygate? :rofl: It's hilarious to me that this is all anyone can focus on. It really says a lot about how LITTLE there is to be critical of.

I love it.

 

[Blue]

It is interestig that the conversation is moving to the resume of the Democrat Presidential candidate vs. the resume of the Republican VP candidate. I don't think I can remember when the Presidential candidate was running against the VP candidate.

This says little about Palin but it says volumes about Obama. Obama qualifications say he should be the VP on the ticket.

And that was the genius behind McCain's decision.

Now McCain has the poor dems on the defensive and so confused that they are saying moronic things like Now by choosing Sarah Palin, the republican party has given up any chance of *ever* complaining about Obama's supposed lack of experience. and Well, my understanding is that Governor Palin?s town of Wasilla has, I think, 50 employees. We?ve got 2,500 in this campaign. I think their budget is maybe $12 million a year. You know, we have a budget of about three times that just for the month. So I think that our ability to manage large systems and to execute I think has been made clear over the last couple of years.

 

[montanablur]

I think the choice speaks volumes of McCaine's decision making.

Now I'm really laughing at the pandering your people are willing to do...

 

[GYM]

...how can you be pro-choice and vote repub? That the litmus test of the entire goddamn party...

Ridiculous. That's the same thing as saying all Democrats are in favor of overturning the 2nd Amendment.

 

[antichrist]

honestly, I am puzzled about all the excitement about Palin's daughter's pregnancy. Big fucking deal

I agree with you there.And hopefully no one will make a big deal about it, since Palin can't really control when her daughter has sex.

But where her daughter's pregnancy does come in to play, and the only place it does, is the fact that Palin only wants abstinence-only sex-ed taught in schools, even though it's obviously not working in her own home. Having a VP, and potential pres, who can't recognize a failure, even when it's in her own home, is sorta scary.

 

[J. Toronado]

Yeah, its ridiculous to think Republicans have something to do with the pro-life movement.
Just ridiculous.

"The pro-life position of the Republican Party Platform was arrived at through the democratic process and has been consistently maintained through seven Republican National Conventions. Speaking through its Platforms adopted in 1976, 1980, 1984, 1988, 1992, 1996, and 2000, the Republican Party has consistently upheld the right to life of unborn babies ever since the Roe v. Wade decision. The text has remained remarkably constant ever since 1984 and offers the voters a clear difference from the Democratic Platform.

The media clamor for Republicans to abandon -- or at least modify -- their pro-life position. To do that would not only be wrong, it would not only be a betrayal of our honorable tradition, but it would be politically stupid. Since, in politics, perception is reality, waffling would be perceived as abandonment. The Republican Party cannot afford to make the mistake President George Bush made when he reneged on his 1988 campaign promise ("Read my lips -- no new taxes"). More importantly, the pro-life constituency has been a major, even decisive, factor in the unprecedented growth of the Republican Party in the 1980s and 1990s. Dozens of Republicans in Congress were elected only because they were steadfast in their pro-life position."

 

[p m]

I agree with you there.And hopefully no one will make a big deal about it, since Palin can't really control when her daughter has sex.

But where her daughter's pregnancy does come in to play, and the only place it does, is the fact that Palin only wants abstinence-only sex-ed taught in schools, even though it's obviously not working in her own home. Having a VP, and potential pres, who can't recognize a failure, even when it's in her own home, is sorta scary.

That's okay, too - it may actually reinforce Palin's position on abstinence.
As far things not working at home as opposed to the office - Bill Clinton comes to mind. Hard to beat that. (to be fair, Bushes also had their share - with the daughters).