TheCatSite.com › Forums › General Forums › IMO: In My Opinion › Is it going to be Sarah Palin?
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Is it going to be Sarah Palin? - Page 19

post #541 of 567
Quote:
Originally Posted by ckblv View Post
I believe Sarah Palin has said regarding the subject of abortion, that she would not try to change the law. Just thought I would put that out there.

Besides the fact that I really believe that female Democrats are not being held hostage by that old, tired and worn pro-choice argument anymore, at least the PUMA ones on the Hillary Forum I am a member of aren't.
They all realize no one is going to take away their right to choose.

After all, we have had 8 years of Reagan, 4 years of Bush I, 8 years of Bush II, that is Twenty, yes 20 years of Republican Presidents and, lo and behold ,not one of them tried to overturn Roe V Wade.

Isn't that just the most amazing thing????

That argument is irrelevent IMO.
Really? South Dakota Readies Again for Abortion Fight
post #542 of 567
I disagree on this one and it is my most compelling reason to vote against the Republicans in this election.

John McCain has come out and flatly stated that he wants to overturn Roe vs Wade.
Quote:
John McCain believes Roe v. Wade is a flawed decision that must be overturned, and as president he will nominate judges who understand that courts should not be in the business of legislating from the bench.

Constitutional balance would be restored by the reversal of Roe v. Wade, returning the abortion question to the individual states. The difficult issue of abortion should not be decided by judicial fiat.

However, the reversal of Roe v. Wade represents only one step in the long path toward ending abortion.
More on McCain's stance on this here:
http://www.johnmccain.com/Informing/...028d71df58.htm

The makeup of the Supreme Court as far as which party put the justices on the SC and their age distribution strongly indicate to me that one more Republican term will be enough to allow appointments which cause the US to have an overwhelmingly conservative SC for several decades.

I understand the legal argument about wanting to leave the decision to the states, but this party wants to outlaw abortion.
post #543 of 567
Quote:
Originally Posted by jcat View Post


Presidents are on a Federal level.

I heard John McCain at the Saddleback forum, he did NOT say he was going to overturn Roe V Wade. Just a worn out, tired argument.
Not one I would vote for or against a President for, but that is just me.
post #544 of 567
Quote:
Originally Posted by 2dogmom View Post
I disagree on this one and it is my most compelling reason to vote against the Republicans in this election.

John McCain has come out and flatly stated that he wants to overturn Roe vs Wade.

More on McCain's stance on this here:
http://www.johnmccain.com/Informing/...028d71df58.htm

The makeup of the Supreme Court as far as which party put the justices on the SC and their age distribution strongly indicate to me that one more Republican term will be enough to allow appointments which cause the US to have an overwhelmingly conservative SC for several decades.

I understand the legal argument about wanting to leave the decision to the states, but this party wants to outlaw abortion.
And Obama says he won't raise taxes, but he know he really will, just like Clinton did about a month after taking office. Candidates may say they would like to overturn RVW but it is NOT going to happen. Geesh
post #545 of 567
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20081002/...bernhard_palin

Looks like some people have taken issue with Sarah Bernhard's awful remarks.
post #546 of 567
Quote:
Originally Posted by ckblv View Post
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20081002/...bernhard_palin

Looks like some people have taken issue with Sarah Bernhard's awful remarks.
Good for them.

Bernhard is a truly hideous woman....
post #547 of 567
I think they pulled her because of the violence of the remark not because it was said about Palin. They did not say it was about Palin.
post #548 of 567
Quote:
Originally Posted by CC12 View Post
I think they pulled her because of the violence of the remark not because it was said about Palin. They did not say it was about Palin.
It's clear that they pulled the act because rape isn't something to joke about.
post #549 of 567
Quote:
Originally Posted by ckblv View Post
Presidents are on a Federal level.
Did you catch this from the article I linked to? http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...092002144.html
Quote:
A group called Vote Yes for Life soon pushed the new version, which they hope will prevent more than 700 abortions a year and produce the case that will overturn Roe v. Wade, the 1973 Supreme Court ruling legalizing abortion nationwide.
Or this?
Quote:
Hickey says he believes South Dakota has been chosen by God to challenge Roe v. Wade.
That means this group wants to raise the issue to the federal level.

Quote:
Originally Posted by ckblv View Post
I heard John McCain at the Saddleback forum, he did NOT say he was going to overturn Roe V Wade. Just a worn out, tired argument.
Not one I would vote for or against a President for, but that is just me.
He didn't say that at Saddleback, true, http://trevinwax.com/2008/08/17/obam...k-forum-video/ ,but the McCain/Palin website, quoted above, states that.
http://www.johnmccain.com/Informing/...028d71df58.htm
Quote:
Overturning Roe v. Wade

John McCain believes Roe v. Wade is a flawed decision that must be overturned, and as president he will nominate judges who understand that courts should not be in the business of legislating from the bench.

Constitutional balance would be restored by the reversal of Roe v. Wade, returning the abortion question to the individual states. The difficult issue of abortion should not be decided by judicial fiat.
post #550 of 567
Quote:
Originally Posted by ckblv View Post
It's clear that they pulled the act because rape isn't something to joke about.
That is what I said. They pulled it because of the violent remarks. Rape is a violent act. There is clearly nothing funny about rape. I don't see where you thought I was saying anything different than that.
post #551 of 567
Quote:
Originally Posted by CC12 View Post
I think they pulled her because of the violence of the remark not because it was said about Palin. They did not say it was about Palin.
Where did I say anthing about Palin, I believe in this post you brought her up, not me.
post #552 of 567
Quote:
Originally Posted by ckblv View Post
Where did I say anthing about Palin, I believe in this post you brought her up, not me.
Yes, since this is the Sarah Palin thread I was saying that they removed her for her remarks not because they were about Palin but because the remarks were offensive period.

Not sure why you are parsing words at this innocuous statement.
post #553 of 567
Sorry. Would a wink be appropriate? Just kidding, it's all good, no worries.
post #554 of 567
post #555 of 567
Well, Sarah said yesterday, "There's a place in hell for women who don't support other women."

I believe she just opened the door on John McCain's voting record on women. His flip flop on Roe V Wade, his vote against the 2007 Violence Against Women Act, against the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994 that stated that women don't have to pay for their rape exams.
post #556 of 567
Yes, Palin misquoted former Secretary of State Madeleine Albright, who had said there is a place in Hell reserved for women who don't help other women.

I can't say I care for the insinuation that those of us who are X-chromosome gifted are obligated to stand behind her, as if this presumed some kind of solidarity. I don't think I would have supported OR helped Anita Bryant if she had run for public office.

And of all four of the canididates, Biden has the strongest record on helping women.
http://www.tnr.com/politics/story.ht...2-7d9ecd21a854

McCain's record is abysmal when it comes to protecting women's rights, and Palin on the ticket isn't going to make any substantive changes.
http://www.now.org/press/09-08/09-16.html
post #557 of 567
Quote:
Originally Posted by 2dogmom View Post
Yes, Palin misquoted former Secretary of State Madeleine Albright, who had said there is a place in Hell reserved for women who don't help other women.

I can't say I care for the insinuation that those of us who are X-chromosome gifted are obligated to stand behind her, as if this presumed some kind of solidarity. I don't think I would have supported OR helped Anita Bryant if she had run for public office.

And of all four of the canididates, Biden has the strongest record on helping women.
http://www.tnr.com/politics/story.ht...2-7d9ecd21a854

McCain's record is abysmal when it comes to protecting women's rights, and Palin on the ticket isn't going to make any substantive changes.
http://www.now.org/press/09-08/09-16.html

I thought "help" and "support" meant the same thing.
post #558 of 567
Quote:
Originally Posted by ckblv View Post
I thought "help" and "support" meant the same thing.
She quoted an Obama supporter. I can't figure that one out either.

Here's Albright's response: "Though I am flattered that Governor Palin has chosen to cite me as a source of wisdom, what I said had nothing to do with politics. This is yet another example of McCain and Palin distorting the truth, and all the more reason to remember that this campaign is not about gender, it is about which candidate has an agenda that will improve the lives of all Americans, including women. The truth is, if you care about the status of women in our society and in our troubled economy, the best choice by far is Obama-Biden."
post #559 of 567
Quote:
Originally Posted by ckblv View Post
I thought "help" and "support" meant the same thing.
After Palin went to the trouble to correct Biden that the slogan was "Drill, baby, drill" and not "drill, drill, drill" I was under the impression that it was time to pick nits.
post #560 of 567
So help and support do mean the same so Sarah didn't misspeak, all is well, I don't understand the problem here. Sounds like some people, present company excluded, are nitpicking. I don't care what Maddie says, she was quoted correctly IMO.
post #561 of 567
Quote:
Originally Posted by 2dogmom View Post
Yes, Palin misquoted former Secretary of State Madeleine Albright, who had said there is a place in Hell reserved for women who don't help other women.

I can't say I care for the insinuation that those of us who are X-chromosome gifted are obligated to stand behind her, as if this presumed some kind of solidarity. I don't think I would have supported OR helped Anita Bryant if she had run for public office.

And of all four of the canididates, Biden has the strongest record on helping women.
http://www.tnr.com/politics/story.ht...2-7d9ecd21a854

McCain's record is abysmal when it comes to protecting women's rights, and Palin on the ticket isn't going to make any substantive changes.
http://www.now.org/press/09-08/09-16.html

I was not aware of Biden's record. Thank you for sharing. He needs to get out there and let people know. One thing I have always liked about him was his ability to champion something he believes in.
post #562 of 567
I think support and help are not the same but similar in meaning but in politics it is a little different. You support your candidate but to help your candidate is a little different. Splitting hairs but a little different.
post #563 of 567
Not that this would ever change anyone's opinon of Sarah Palin, but...

http://www.adn.com/wildlife/story/586116.html

Even the group against it admit it worked. And the Wildlife Commission is going to work on prodecures for dealing with wolf pups in the future.

A good point I read on a blog: if the caribou are all killed by wolves, then eventually the wolves run out of food sources and die too. Which is more humane - a quick death or suffering starvation?
post #564 of 567
Quote:
Originally Posted by neetanddave View Post
Not that this would ever change anyone's opinon of Sarah Palin, but...

http://www.adn.com/wildlife/story/586116.html

Even the group against it admit it worked. And the Wildlife Commission is going to work on prodecures for dealing with wolf pups in the future.

A good point I read on a blog: if the caribou are all killed by wolves, then eventually the wolves run out of food sources and die too. Which is more humane - a quick death or suffering starvation?
Nice try but it didn't change my opinion. I still think it is cruel. I don't see why they can't relocate them or at least put the pups in a sanctuary. This is done so hunters can have more caribou to hunt. This is all to satisfy humans and not letting nature do what it is supposed to do. I could see culling some in a humane fashion to keep an environmental balance but it is a cruel practice what they are doing.
post #565 of 567
I saw Greta last night interviewing Sarah Palin at her home in Alaska.
Such a nice family she has.
Sarah made Moose Stew. The people of Alaska hunt and eat Caribou and Moose. The Moose and Caribou are prey for the wolves.
The people of Alaska don't eat our steroid injected beef, they don't truck in much Beef. I don't think there is one thing wrong with culling the wolves to save the Moose and Caribou. Moose and Caribou are a food source. That comes before wolves IMO.

Good grief, many are against drilling in ANWR because of the Caribou but see no problem with the wolves decimating the Caribou.
post #566 of 567
Quote:
Originally Posted by ckblv View Post
I saw Greta last night interviewing Sarah Palin at her home in Alaska.
Such a nice family she has.
Sarah made Moose Stew. The people of Alaska hunt and eat Caribou and Moose. The Moose and Caribou are prey for the wolves.
The people of Alaska don't eat our steroid injected beef, they don't truck in much Beef. I don't think there is one thing wrong with culling the wolves to save the Moose and Caribou. Moose and Caribou are a food source. That comes before wolves IMO.

Good grief, many are against drilling in ANWR because of the Caribou but see no problem with the wolves decimating the Caribou.
Because it is circle of life and the natural food chain. Nobody said that they can only eat caribou and moose. I have eaten a lot of game meat and those aren't even all that good to me. Elk is much better. What do the grizzly bears do?
post #567 of 567
Quote:
Originally Posted by neetanddave View Post
Not that this would ever change anyone's opinon of Sarah Palin, but...

http://www.adn.com/wildlife/story/586116.html

Even the group against it admit it worked. And the Wildlife Commission is going to work on prodecures for dealing with wolf pups in the future.

A good point I read on a blog: if the caribou are all killed by wolves, then eventually the wolves run out of food sources and die too. Which is more humane - a quick death or suffering starvation?
That is good to know Neet. I saw the Palin family and Greta eating Moose stew last night.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: IMO: In My Opinion
TheCatSite.com › Forums › General Forums › IMO: In My Opinion › Is it going to be Sarah Palin?