Correcting rumors about Sarah Palin

[Killian Kalthorne]

You are dodging the issue. You want to trash her for being a Christian conservative but you will not take responsibility for being completely dishonest about her views.

 

That is my view of her and I am not going to change it and I will not be voting for her. Also here is another little thing I picked up about her. Earmarks on the "Bridge to Nowhere." Now she states that she is against earmarks, that she was against the Bridge to Nowhere, but lo and behold she was not when it actually benefited her. Says one thing, but her actions dictate another. Sounds like politics as normal. Wow, that is a real maverick there.

[taks]

That is my view of her and I am not going to change it and I will not be voting for her.

yes, who would ever accuse you of letting the facts get in the way of your view, eh? her problems aside, you're a liberal, planning to vote liberal, so making excuses is what... simply trying to convince yourself that you're making the right choice? rationalization?

 

taks

 

edit: actually, if you are who we think you are, i should take back the two instances of liberal, but insert democrat instead.

Edited September 8, 2008 by taks

[Killian Kalthorne]

Yes, I do have some liberal views on certain matters, but I also have conservative views on others. As for AIP, Palin's participation is suspect and it is interesting to see how quickly the Republicans move to separate her from that political party. It is just one of many reasons why I will not to vote for her and McCain. Her views on abortion, gay marriage, how to deal with other nations, health care, and the economy are other issues I am against.

[Pidesco]

I thought the goal of sex ed was to reduce teen pregnancies and the spread of STDs, not teen sex.

[Deadly_Nightshade]

I thought the goal of sex ed was to reduce teen pregnancies and the spread of STDs, not teen sex.

 

Exactly.

[Killian Kalthorne]

I thought the goal of sex ed was to reduce teen pregnancies and the spread of STDs, not teen sex.

Same here. People of all ages will have sex. Sex is a fun and pleasurable activity that two consenting individuals can do. Its going to happen regardless, so the best thing to do is make sure it happens safely, and that those who engage such activity have full "explicit" information about the consequences.

[samm]

Same here. ( Even if education often leads to not wanting to have anything to do with the subject again in one's life, for example math, thanks to our incompetent teacher ). If however the goal would be to reduce sex, then preaching abstinence only is naturally the one way to get to that goal.

Edited September 9, 2008 by samm

[themadhatter114]

You are dodging the issue. You want to trash her for being a Christian conservative but you will not take responsibility for being completely dishonest about her views.

 

That is my view of her and I am not going to change it and I will not be voting for her.

 

I don't care whether or not you are voting for her. But yet you still cling to a view of her that is based entirely on lies.

 

Also here is another little thing I picked up about her. Earmarks on the "Bridge to Nowhere." Now she states that she is against earmarks, that she was against the Bridge to Nowhere, but lo and behold she was not when it actually benefited her. Says one thing, but her actions dictate another. Sounds like politics as normal. Wow, that is a real maverick there.

 

There are interviews from February on Youtube where Palin is talking about her focus on helping Alaska become more self sufficient. One way to do this was to try to balance the state budget and cut unnecessary spending. However, yes, she had before shown support for the bridge project. Then despite the stink everyone raised about the Bridge to Nowhere, Congress gave them the money, anyway, though they'd removed the actual earmark. It wasn't enough money, so Palin decided to use the federal money on more fundamental infrastructure issues and has been discussing a more fiscally responsible way to provide access to the island.

 

Not a big deal as far as I'm concerned, but I do honestly wish the McCain campaign would stop hyping it up since the story is different from what they claim, but it's not really a flip-flip, either. At least, what happened wasn't a flip-flop, really, but the way the campaign is presenting it is.

[taks]

I thought the goal of sex ed was to reduce teen pregnancies and the spread of STDs, not teen sex.

which is accomplished by reducing teen sex (not that it is possible, just saying).

 

taks

[themadhatter114]

I thought the goal of sex ed was to reduce teen pregnancies and the spread of STDs, not teen sex.

 

Even so, it's still essentially the same either way. The study found that students that went through abstinence-only programs didn't seem to have less sex, but they seemed to use contraception just as often.

[themadhatter114]

Yes, I do have some liberal views on certain matters, but I also have conservative views on others. As for AIP, Palin's participation is suspect and it is interesting to see how quickly the Republicans move to separate her from that political party. It is just one of many reasons why I will not to vote for her and McCain. Her views on abortion, gay marriage, how to deal with other nations, health care, and the economy are other issues I am against.

 

The amusing thing about the Republicans trying to separate her from the AIP is that the AIP and the Republicans are pretty friendly in Alaska. The Republican who tried to remove the leader of the Troopergate investigation is the son of the former AIP chairman. Her flirtation with the AIP is a huge plus for me.

 

Has Palin ever made a statement against civil unions? Marriage is defined in Alaska's Constitution as between a man and a woman. Therefore denying spousal benefits to gay couples is not a discrimination issue. Gay couples are no more deserving of spousal benefits than cohabiting siblings. Of course, in my view, they should all be the same. Gay civil unions are the undoing of marriage as a social institution. But if the government would simply stay out of the marriage debate altogether, it would be so much better.

 

But what views on foreign policy, health care, or the economy have Palin even expressed so far? I understand if you're simply saying you're against the McCain ticket, or the Republicans, but stating specifically that you are opposed to Palin's views when she has not expressed those views is a little silly.

 

I don't expect to get to know her actual views, though. Right now she's being given the McCain party line and will have to stick with it. Honestly I think Palin is an isolationist at heart. She preaches energy independence and I'd say that's because she wants to get the hell out of other countries. She was singing Ron Paul's praises during the Republican primaries. Though I wouldn't be surprised if her views will put her in the pro-Israel lobby.

[themadhatter114]

Yes, I do have some liberal views on certain matters, but I also have conservative views on others. As for AIP, Palin's participation is suspect and it is interesting to see how quickly the Republicans move to separate her from that political party. It is just one of many reasons why I will not to vote for her and McCain. Her views on abortion, gay marriage, how to deal with other nations, health care, and the economy are other issues I am against.

 

The amusing thing about the Republicans trying to separate her from the AIP is that the AIP and the Republicans are pretty friendly in Alaska. The Republican who tried to remove the leader of the Troopergate investigation is the son of the former AIP chairman. Her flirtation with the AIP is a huge plus for me.

 

Has Palin ever made a statement against civil unions? Marriage is defined in Alaska's Constitution as between a man and a woman. Therefore denying spousal benefits to gay couples is not a discrimination issue. Gay couples are no more deserving of spousal benefits than cohabiting siblings. Of course, in my view, they should all be the same. Gay civil unions are the undoing of marriage as a social institution. But if the government would simply stay out of the marriage debate altogether, it would be so much better.

 

But what views on foreign policy, health care, or the economy have Palin even expressed so far? I understand if you're simply saying you're against the McCain ticket, or the Republicans, but stating specifically that you are opposed to Palin's views when she has not expressed those views is a little silly.

 

I don't expect to get to know her actual views, though. Right now she's being given the McCain party line and will have to stick with it. Honestly I think Palin is an isolationist at heart. She preaches energy independence and I'd say that's because she wants to get the hell out of other countries. She was singing Ron Paul's praises during the Republican primaries. Though I wouldn't be surprised if her views will put her in the pro-Israel lobby.

[Pidesco]

I thought the goal of sex ed was to reduce teen pregnancies and the spread of STDs, not teen sex.

which is accomplished by reducing teen sex (not that it is possible, just saying).

 

taks

 

That would be akin to trying to solve famine in Africa by sending bags of rice over. It's missing the point.

[Walsingham]

I have been getting increasingly annoyed by how everyone is obsessing on how she adds 'pazzazz' (according to today's Metro) to the campaign. Is this really the treatment a woman can expect if she goes into politics? To be treated like one of those girls they drape across cars? It's just fething retarded.

[Killian Kalthorne]

Madhatter, Sarah Palin has stated that she will adhere to strict Republican doctrine and Republican doctrine is against gay marriage and civil unions. A good chunk of Republicans want to make this into a Constitutional amendment even. Pretty much they want not give Homosexuals equal rights under the law. Marriage should be defined as two individuals who love and cherish each other to the point they are committed to each other in both a spiritual and physical bond. Again, with the 19th and 20th century thinking, Republicans are 100% against this completely, so much so they are against civil unions.

 

Democrats are only a little better. There are some who don't want gay marriage but wish to pursue civil unions for homosexual couples. That is the stance of Barack Obama. Not optimal because it looks like it is following the "equal, but different" philosophy that segregationists used. Now if they made all marriages act as civil unions under the law, the term "marriage" would be meaningless in a legal and governmental terms while keeping its religious significance to those who find religious traditions important.

 

She has said she will be following Republican doctrine and that is enough for me not to vote for her. We have given the Republicans 8 years to make the United States a better place and they have failed.

[Enoch]

Here's a new one: She billed the State of Alaska for flying her kids around. Apparently, little Piper Palin had to conduct a lot of official state business during her mom's term in office.

[SteveThaiBinh]

Flying around with her, or off on their own jaunts? Because the former doesn't sound unreasonable...

[taks]

which is accomplished by reducing teen sex (not that it is possible, just saying).

 

taks

 

That would be akin to trying to solve famine in Africa by sending bags of rice over. It's missing the point.

did you notice the point i made in the parentheses, or just glaze over because of your pre-conceived notions about what i'm saying?

 

we're having a discussion about abstinence programs for sex education, so it is rather reasonable to assume that the goal of such a program is to reduce teen sex, which has the added benefit of reducing the spread of STDs as well as teen pregnancy.

 

taks

[taks]

But if the government would simply stay out of the marriage debate altogether, it would be so much better.

a point i've made a million times.

 

but stating specifically that you are opposed to Palin's views when she has not expressed those views is a little silly.

it's called rationalization, actually. his mind was made up a looong time ago that he wanted a democrat in office, and now he needs to find valid excuses for every aspect of the overall mccain vs. obama debate. some are valid (from his perspective) and some need rationalization.

 

taks

[Hurlshort]

But if the government would simply stay out of the marriage debate altogether, it would be so much better.

a point i've made a million times.

 

 

I can see them staying out of the marriage business. If they just stuck to civil unions, we wouldn't have these issues. But as it stands, some couples are not afforded the same rights as others, so it's a pretty clear civil rights violation.

[taks]

yeah, i've heard the argument of "well, what happens if there are children and the couple split?" um, not to point out the obvious but parents are parents regardless of marital status... ahem.

 

the ONLY place it should matter is with benefits, and that should be up to individual companies (as the EDJ example i provided earlier). companies that refuse to honor "life partners" (not just gay couples) will ultimately get hurt in the competition for quality workers (and yes, there is a competition). the tax nonsense needs to go away (well, abolishing unconstitutional/socialist taxes on income would solve that problem) and every other marriage issue can be handled by individual states.

 

taks

[Killian Kalthorne]

The problem with just letting the states handle them leads to nonconformity. What may be legalin one state, may be illegal in another, which in turn will lead only to confusing and conflicted law. That is why we need a central base for this to operate from. One law, one interpretation of that law, being enforced equally on all.

[Killian Kalthorne]

it's called rationalization, actually. his mind was made up a looong time ago that he wanted a democrat in office, and now he needs to find valid excuses for every aspect of the overall mccain vs. obama debate. some are valid (from his perspective) and some need rationalization.

 

taks

 

After 8 years of Bush and Republican leadership, and seeing where it brought us, why would I even want another 4 years of a Republican White House?

 

Also I don't get why you are so against socialized medicine. It works quite well in Canada and the U.K.. Are you against other socialized emergency services such as police and fire departments? Imagine that you had to "pay" a police officer to investigate a break in to your home or to investigate an an assault charge. Imagine if you had to pay the fire department yourself to put out a fire at your home. Imagine the need to make a payment for a 911 call. Only major credit cards accepted!

Edited September 9, 2008 by Killian Kalthorne

[taks]

The problem with just letting the states handle them leads to nonconformity. What may be legalin one state, may be illegal in another, which in turn will lead only to confusing and conflicted law. That is why we need a central base for this to operate from. One law, one interpretation of that law, being enforced equally on all.

ummm, i'm not sure why that's a problem. the whole point of separate states is exactly that. if you don't like your state, either work to change the laws or move.

 

Also I don't get why you are so against socialized medicine. It works quite well in Canada and the U.K.. Are you against other socialized emergency services such as police and fire departments?

two straw men in one thought...

 

police and fire are not "socialized services," at least not in the same sense as health care. we cannot provide policing nor fire protection ourselves, so it serves to reason we should all pay for the protection. that's the type of thing that government is supposed to provide (and it should be noted, these particular things are provided locally through the use of VATs, i.e., sales taxes, which are consumption taxes and completely voluntary). the same could be said for other infrastructure things such as roadways (i cannot build a road) and even the military. the latter two here should also be funded through sales taxes, though at a federal level.

 

health care, however, is easily provided for individually, yet you want me to pay for your care. my rights have to be violated in order for you to have health care. the whole concept of "rights" is lost on those that favor anything socialist. the rights of one person cannot infringe on those of another, otherwise they are not rights. btw, saying "it works quite well in Canada and the U.K." is a stretch, and the second straw man. this has nothing to do with how well it works.

 

taks

[taks]

After 8 years of Bush and Republican leadership, and seeing where it brought us, why would I even want another 4 years of a Republican White House?

uh, btw, i'm still curious what "where it brought us" means. besides the fact that we haven't had fully republican leadership in 2 years, i have to wonder what is so bad that people keep mentioning how bad things are because of bush. the only obvious one is the war in iraq, which, admittedly, didn't do us a whole lot of good and has certainly cost a lot of lives.

 

sure, we can point to the whole phone tapping business but that only effects people that call overseas, which is almost by design NSA territory. we recovered from the tech bubble while bush was in office, and now we're in a housing bubble, neither of which is a result of bush or the republicans (or any party for that matter). all of our taxes got cut. unemployment, while it has risen, is still considered "full" by any historical measure (over 10% in carter days, how soon we forget). yeah, oil prices are high which leads to high prices at the pump, but that's beyond our control, too (and does anyone remember the oil embargo during carter days?). about the only thing the US can do to even try to offset that is to increase our own production (which the democrats are against), and even then it won't help much as long as developing countries continue to develop which increases demand. oh, this whole "get off foreign oil" nonsense is just that: nonsense. we buy oil from speculators, not countries. in spite of all the "bad" things that are going on, the economy is STILL growing in the US, just not at the record pace it was 4 years ago. certainly foreclosures are at record highs, but that wouldn't have happened if home ownership wasn't also at record highs. face it, not everyone is responsible enough to own a home, and those that got duped by ARM scams certainly fall into that category (i have an ARM, but i made sure i could afford the adjusted maximum before i got into it).

 

taks