McCain VP- Sarah Palin

apg said:

...look what happened in the previous eight presidential debates. One guy lost ALL of 'em but still won in November....

Click to expand...

touche

Just to clarify, I am not looking forward to the debates because I think they will turn out one way or another. I am looking forward to them because I am tired of the bullshit and want to see the candidates square off already!

I enjoy politics for the thrill of the game more than anything else, and it's game time, baby!

SGaynor said:

I see point...

For me his "sucking up" was just part of politics.

Click to expand...

For the most part I agree. But I firmly believe there are limits and to pander to people who say the US deserved the attacks....that's just beyond the pale to me.
I mean, look at how US citizens were crucified for even suggesting, after 9-11, that arab states might have some legitimate gripes with the US, not saying the US deserved the attacks, but just they could understand how people hate us. Compare that to leadership coming right out and saying we deserved them. They should be shunned, utterly. McCain chose to pander to them.

antichrist said:

oops, typo, I meant I am shocked that she wouldn't...
Sorta changed the meaning :rofl:

Click to expand...

Context is a bitch isn't it?:smilelol:j/k

gugubica said:

Just to clarify, I am not looking forward to the debates because I think they will turn out one way or another. I am looking forward to them because I am tired of the bullshit and want to see the candidates square off already!

I enjoy politics for the thrill of the game more than anything else, and it's game time, baby!

Click to expand...

Absolutely...we may disagree politically, but I agree with you here - and saw where you were coming from....

But I do hope that viewers will be ethically 'honest' with themselves - and the nation. Say one or the other falls flatter than piss on a plate, will you still vote for 'em? Let's hope not....

Cheers

J. Toronado said:

When did I ever say I gave a rat's ass about polls? You forget I work in politics and have always known that polls arent worth the paper they are printed on.

Click to expand...

A good example of this is Neal Boortz in May 2008:
"getting the Libertarian candidate into the presidential debates would bring a new perspective into this "I want my mommy" election. If the Libertarian candidate polls at 15%, then he will be included in the debates. Right now, Bob Barr's exploratory committee says he is polling at about 7% ... so he has a little ways to go. Lie to the pollsters. No problem there. Get the libertarians into the debate .. that should shake a few trees out there."

gugubica said:

I am looking forward to them because I am tired of the bullshit and want to see the candidates square off already!

Click to expand...

I wish I could join you in looking forward to them, but I've seen a lot of presidential debates over the years, and rarely do the candidates manage a straight answer. Now, if we could have a 3-way debate with the Barr there....that would be interesting.

gugubica said:

Context is a bitch isn't it?:smilelol:j/k

Click to expand...

:rofl:

Damn computer, it should know what I mean to type.

fancy that Antichrist gets post number 666 on this thread. Synchronicity?

Party on Tom, You go boy!

Nomar said:

You may be right.
If Biden is his typical bulldog self, it will not play well if he beats up on a woman.

Click to expand...

I sure hope that isn't how it'd be seen, because that would be bullshit. Isn't she supposed to be a tough cookie? A self-described "pitbull with lipstick"? Surely the pitbull can hold her own with an old bulldog, can't she?

If she can't take getting beat up in a debate, or can't manage to defend her positions, or can't land shots of her own... then she doesn't belong in the debate, and doesn't deserve the job.

Can't have it both ways, "hey I don't take shit from anyone and I get things done" AND "oh don't be so mean to me cuz I'm a girl".

I have no doubt she would agree with me on that point. She doesn't come across as a weenie to me, so I don't expect her to behave or respond like one.

As for McCain's pandering... it may be pragmatic, but when you drop previously strongly held beliefs to kiss someone's ass I call it "pussing out". I supported him for years, and he's the last guy on the planet I expected that kind of crap from. That is why it pisses me off so much. Does anyone remember his position on torture in earlier debates? I was almost cheering him again for at least that bit of backbone. Then he turned around and supported waterboarding later. That was it. Done with the guy.

Like finding out Superman has become partners with Lex Luther... what the hell?! Does he swear at kids and take their candy when no one is looking, too?


Also looking forward to the debates. Hell yes, put Bob up there on stage, too.

Chris-St Louis said:

http://elections.foxnews.com/2008/09/05/top-7-myths-lies-and-untruths-about-sarah-palin/

Click to expand...

Leave it to Fox to spin it

The Charge: Palin opponents say Palin supported the end of all sex education in public schools. In light of her daughter’s presumably unplanned teen pregnancy, this has been a particularly well discussed internet topic.
The Facts: “The explicit sex-ed programs will not find my support,” Palin wrote in a 2006 questionnaire distributed among gubernatorial candidates. Palin favors abstinence-based sex education programs.

Click to expand...

Actual questionaire

3. Will you support funding for abstinence-until-marriage education instead of for explicit sex-education programs, school-based clinics, and the distribution of contraceptives in schools?

SP: Yes, the explicit sex-ed programs will not find my support.​

Click to expand...

So, she clearly says she won't fund sex-ed that gives kids any details (I'm sure the apologists will spin it that by "explicit" she means she won't fund showing porn LOL). Abstinence-until-marriage isn't the same as abstinence-based.

antichrist said:

I wish I could join you in looking forward to them, but I've seen a lot of presidential debates over the years, and rarely do the candidates manage a straight answer. Now, if we could have a 3-way debate with the Barr there....that would be interesting.

Click to expand...

Agreed, 100%

antichrist said:

Leave it to Fox to spin it


Actual questionaire
So, she clearly says she won't fund sex-ed that gives kids any details (I'm sure the apologists will spin it that by "explicit" she means she won't fund showing porn LOL). Abstinence-until-marriage isn't the same as abstinence-based.

​

Click to expand...

I actually could see that, the questionaire did not say "contraseptive-bases sex-ed" and "supply contraseptives. If it one or the other, neither is great. The best answer probably lies in the middle.

I would believe that one thought it to mean "watch porn and then hand out condoms".

gugubica said:

The best answer probably lies in the middle.

Click to expand...

Absolutely! And I can't understand why people can't see that. Do your best to get kids to wait, I guess ideally til marriage, but at least until they are able to properly support a kid. Married or not, teenagers shouldn't be having kids.
But also teach them how conception works (I bet 90% don't really know), how to prevent it, and about STD's.
Many parents will teach their kids responsible behaviour, including contraception, but many won't. It's in society's best interest to make sure kids know about it. But I also know some parents want to teach their kids themselves, maybe put even greater emphasis on abstinence, and I can respect that. So here's my solution:
1. All schools teach good sex-ed, including the benifits of abstinence.
2. Any student who's parents want them to not attend the school class can test out of the class. A comprehensive test is given, if they score well, say 90% or better, then they can opt out of the class. Otherwise the class becomes mandatory for them. Any student can take the class who wants to, no matter how well they score.

Maybe I'm just fried from long days...you're going to have to spell out what you mean.
Are you saying you'd rather kids have babies before they are out of school, rather than wait until they are in their 20's?
As far as their parents bailing them out, a lot of parents can't even bail themselves out. More than likely those are the ones who need good sex-ed the most.

Tom, let me translate:

PM thinks it is better for 17 year olds to have kids and have the 17yr old's parents pay for it than people to earn a living and wait until their late 30's to have kids.

I didn't realize that earning some dough and having kids that you can afford was a bad thing.

That's a head scratcher for sure...

It's not reading comprehension that's giving me a problem, Peter. It's your line of thought that I have trouble with. I think it is irresponsible to have children until you can support them financially. I guess I'm a little risk averse that way. My wife and I waited to have children until we made a fair amount of money and could support them without any financial worries. I'm not the type of person to do something spontaneous and figure out how to pay for it afterward. That's probably why I drive a 97 Disco and have no worries about my mortgage, while others drive fancy cars and are foreclosing on their houses.