Palin pick an insult to our intelligence

  • Context: News 
  • Thread starter Thread starter physucsc11
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Intelligence
Join the discussion
Registration is free. Ask a follow-up in this thread, or start your own.
Sign up Log in
1,013 replies · 101K views
Integral said:
I refuse to judge anyone's intelligence based on 30 sec sound bites and TV presence. I will bet that if you got to know her, she is not a complete idiot.

Who says that is the basis for my opinion? You are the one who doesn't follow politics.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
turbo-1 said:
Palin has said that it would be unthinkable to charge a crime victim for the evidence-collection and testing for the cost of the kit and the tests. Yet, during her tenure as mayor of Wasilla, this is exactly what happened to rape victims. Why? Could it be that the emergency treatment of rape victims routinely involves offering the victim an emergency contraceptive that prevents the implantation of any egg fertilized in the rape?

This is pure nonsense, and has been addressed multiple times.

If you can come up with any alternative, I'd love to hear it. Palin's insistence that abortion is disallowed even the case of rape or incest appears to have crossed into public policy in Wasilla. I don't want that woman anywhere near the reproductive rights of my nieces.

Again, pure nonsense. Stop drinking the Kool-Aid. But you will vote for a man who essentially supports the murder of infants? Because that is technically what he voted for.
 
WheelsRCool said:
This is pure nonsense, and has been addressed multiple times.

You got that part right. Mean Sarah was totally disingenuous in her denials that she would insult the victim.

But the bottom line is that she was responsible. And she would duck responsibility. She sounds little more than a dangerous mean hypocrite. Decrying out of one side of her mouth what she authorizes out the other.
 
WheelsRCool said:
Again, pure nonsense. Stop drinking the Kool-Aid. But you will vote for a man who essentially supports the murder of infants? Because that is technically what he voted for.
No, technically, it's not.
 
Evo said:
No, technically, it's not.

He voted to support live-birth abortions and then defended the reason for this on video, saying it was to protect the woman's right to choose.
 
WheelsRCool said:
He voted to support live-birth abortions and then defended the reason for this on video, saying it was to protect the woman's right to choose.
You do know that there is no such thing as a "live birth abortion", right?
 
Evo said:
You do know that there is no such thing as a "live birth abortion", right?

Maybe I am not up on the proper terminology; what I know is that Senator Obama opposed Illinois legislation in 2001, 2002 and 2003 that would have defined any aborted fetus that showed signs of life as a "born alive infant" entitled to legal protection.

Senator Obama opposed these as saying it infringes on a woman's right to choose, but that he would have supported a similar bill signed by President Bush in 2002 that included protections for Rove v. Wade. However, Senator Obama voted against a 2003 state bill that was nearly identical to the federal bill he said he'd have supported.

http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/obama_and_infanticide.html

I also know he has voted against banning partial-birth abortions (although he did say the state can restrict late-term partial-birth abortions as of 2008): http://www.ontheissues.org/Barack_Obama.htm
 
Last edited by a moderator:
And I am in complete agreement with Obama that partial birth abortions should be allowed. These are usually in cases where the life of the mother is in danger. I am pro-choice and the fact that Obama is pro-choice is one of the main reasons I am voting for him. As a matter of fact, it is so important to me that I will not vote for someone that is not pro-choice, no matter what else they are proposing. This is one right that is so important to me that it supercedes all other issues

Only fools would try to convince themselves that making abortions illegal would stop abortions. Making abortions illegal would mean that the rich could still get safe medical abortions and the poor would have to resort to "coat hanger" abortions, endangering the life and well being of the mother. Please explain to me how that is preferable to a safe medical abortion in the hands of a doctor.
 
Last edited:
Evo said:
And I am in complete agreement with Obama that partial birth abortions should be allowed. These are usually in cases where the life of the mother is in danger. I am pro-choice and the fact that Obama is pro-choice is one of the main reasons I am voting for him. As a matter of fact, it is so important to me that I will not vote for someone that is not pro-choice, no matter what else they are proposing. This is one right that is so important to me that it supercedes all other issues

I can understand that; sort of like all the pro-lifers who will not vote for someone if they are pro-choice, not matter what. Abortion is a make-or-break issue for many.

So is the Second Amendment and a candidate's views on it.

HOWEVER, one major misconception many seem to have is that pro-life people who are against partial birth abortion are against it even in the case of the mother's life being in danger. Most pro-life people I know are not at all against it if the mother's life is endangered. Governor Palin also accepts abortion if the mother's life is in danger: http://www.ontheissues.org/2008/Sarah_Palin_Abortion.htm (last quote).

Only fools would try to convince themselves that making abortions illegal would stop abortions.

Yes; that's how Republicans are with gun control to; you make guns illegal or try to enact gun-control, and a black market forms, and only the criminals get guns, along with those who are rich and/or have political connections.

Same thing with abortions.

Making abortions illegal would mean that the rich could still get abortions and the poor would have to resort to "coat hanger" abortions, endagering the life and well being of the mother. Please explain to me how that is preferable to a safe medical abortion in the hands of a doctor.

As I've said before, although I do not like abortion, I believe in the woman's right to choose for the first trimester (which is when most abortions take place). And I support abortions for any trimester if the woman's life is in danger.

I am against ordinary abortions after the first trimester when the baby becomes a fetus.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
As I stated above, a woman needs to be assured of a safe medical abortion for ANY reason.

Explain to me how pushing women into dangerous abortions or suicide is a good thing.

Legal abortions only allow a woman a choice, it's not forcing anything on anyone.
 
Last edited:
I did explain (I don't believe in pushing women into dangerous abortions or suicide).
 
WheelsRCool said:
I did explain (I don't believe in pushing women into dangerous abortions or suicide).
Ooops, sorry! I am a bad person, I was typing and not reading.
 
Legislative Council live audio

http://www.ktoo.org/gavel/audio.cfm

Edit: Feed just went dead.

Oh well.

Edit II:
ADN said:
Troopergate hearing (Updated: 12-0 vote to release the report)
Posted by Alaska_Politics
Posted: October 10, 2008 - 9:15 am

4:11 p.m.The Legislative Council just voted 12-0 to release the report, except for certain parts they consider confidential.

The reporters were to be available immediately, but no one seems to know where to get them here at the Legislative offices.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Palin Abused Power as Governor says report.

Just reported by MSNBC.

Legislative_Committee_Report said:
... unlawfully abused her authority ...

Link to the Branchflower Report:
http://media.adn.com/smedia/2008/10/10/16/Branchflowerreport.source.prod_affiliate.7.pdf
 
Last edited by a moderator:
LowlyPion said:
Palin Abused Power as Governor says report.

Just reported by MSNBC.
Wow, that's pretty bad.
 
At the bottom of Page 67:
For all the above reasons, I find that Governor Sarah Palin abused her power as Governor in that her conduct violated AS 39.52.110(a) of the Ethics Act.

The conclusions begin on Page 65 for those interested.
 
She'd be a perfect replacement for the bozos we have in office now! She meets all the criteria - she's not too bright, not curious, a fundamentalist, an abuser of power...
 
lisab said:
She'd be a perfect replacement for the bozos we have in office now! She meets all the criteria - she's not too bright, not curious, a fundamentalist, an abuser of power...
Yeah, but you're not supposed to be so dumb that you actually get nailed for it.

I'm sure McCain is having one of those head slapping moments. That's what you get when you allow the minister of a mega church in Florida to suggest your running mate.
 
Maybe this is why McCain stopped the nasty attack.

With Palin getting pushed down the sink disposal and the politics of mean getting no traction, and the economy in the toilet - the Republican trajectory is looking straight down.
 
What happens next? Is it likely there will be an impeachment or will it just be a slap on the wrist from the ethics committee?

Edit - More trouble in the offing for Palin

Judge orders state to preserve Palin's e-mails

By MARK THIESSEN – 4 hours ago

ANCHORAGE, Alaska (AP) — A judge has ordered the state of Alaska to preserve any government-related e-mails that Gov. Sarah Palin sent from private accounts.

Anchorage Superior Court Judge Craig Stowers ruled Friday in the lawsuit brought by Anchorage resident Andree McLeod against Palin, the Republican vice presidential nominee.
snip
The judge ordered the attorney general to contact Yahoo and other private carriers to preserve any e-mails sent and received on those accounts. If the e-mails were destroyed when the accounts were deactivated, he directed state officials to have the companies attempt to resurrect the e-mails.

"We shouldn't be in a position where public records have been lost because the governor didn't do what every other state employee knows to do, which is to use an official, secure state e-mail account to conduct state business," McLeod said after the 90-minute hearing.

"It's a dereliction of the governor and her duties," she said.
http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5jYzDQkO2LkYr39TyxxIjsFpkohfwD93NS16G1
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Art said:
What happens next? Is it likely there be an impeachment or will it just be a slap on the wrist from the ethics committee?

I doubt it matters really.

For this election cycle, she's looking like toast.
 
LowlyPion said:
I doubt it matters really.

For this election cycle, she's looking like toast.
Unless this legally prevents her from running for VP, it's not going to make any difference to the people that feel she is "one of them". Unfortunately and frighteningly, this isn't going to change anyone's mind. If the "troupergate" issue has any impact, I'd say it was mostly done before the decision.

My ex-husband's wife is a good example. She doesn't care if McCain's VP is a serial killer. She's religious and she makes over $250,000.00 a year (they both do individually) and she's voting for McCain because she's Republican. She's Republican because her family was poor and she associates being Republican with being rich. I didn't say she was bright.
 
Redbelly98 said:
Of course she isn't. Bright people are elitist, left-wing wackos.

Anybody with half a brain (but no more than that) knows this.
I did not know that. Does that mean I have more than half a brain? :-p

And she seriously has said what I said, I wasn't making it up. She's Republican because her parents were poor and they were Democrats and she always saw Republicans as rich. :eek:

My girls were arguing with her Sunday night over her voting Republican without even knowing what she was voting for. I think a lot of people fall into this boat (on both sides) and what is in the news is lost on them. My ex is voting for Obama, which surprised the heck out of me.
 
Last edited:
Evo said:
Unless this legally prevents her from running for VP, it's not going to make any difference to the people that feel she is "one of them". Unfortunately and frighteningly, this isn't going to change anyone's mind. If the "troupergate" issue has any impact, I'd say it was mostly done before the decision.

I'm sure there is an element that will refuse to hear. But I think there are enough that do listen that it assures Obama being the winner.

I am somewhat encouraged to see McCain draw back and reduce the really dangerous rhetoric that was developing. It looks to me like a selfless act and I think that we should be encouraged for the country, if he can reduce tension at least a notch and be a graceful runner-up. Perhaps the country can withdraw from the abyss of division that I was much more concerned about just a day ago.
 
I wish I could believe that Obama is going to win. It's one of those "what keeps you up at night" questions. I want to believe that the majority of people in the US can look beyond race, but having argued the race issue with people here on the forum for two years, I'm appalled by how deep and widespread racism is today.
 
Last edited:
Yes, there are a lot of bigots left in the world unfortunately who may not vote for Obama because of his race and subconsciously may be more willing to believe lies about Obama, such that he is not a true American or an Arab.

Obama can still win without winning Florida, Ohio, and Virgina, whereas McCain cannot lose one of those except for Virgina and still win really, so I still like his chances.

I wouldn't count on Ohio but Florida a lot of the cities and areas are liberal such as Hillsborough, Jacksonville, tampa, etc. with liberal populations whereas conservatives are in more rural areas.

So he has a good chance in some swing states that would easily put him over the top.
 
Evo said:
I wish I could believe that Obama is going to win. It's one of those "what keeps you up at night" questions. I want to believe that the majority of people in the US can look beyond race, but having argued the race issue with people here on the forum for two years, I'm appalled by how deep and widespread racism is today.

Perhaps tomorrow will be another day. Perhaps the impediments to moving forward will rearrange themselves into a denser thicket.

But this evening I will rest well, well in the knowledge that the vectors that have seemed such inconstant indicators of where we needed to go are at last aligned with the stars. The market scrambling to cling to the ledge that greed had pushed it to, a campaign of division in such disarray that it has reverted to embracing its foe, and the facade of an incompetent candidate exposed like a Dracula to the rising sunshine of inquiry.

I will sleep snugly - even if tomorrow it turns out only to have been miscalculated illusion.
 

Similar threads

Limits on Technological Growth: Should We Be Limited By Our Intelligence?

  • hammertime
  • · Replies 16 ·
  • Computing and Technology
Replies
16