Sarah Palin ~ Unbelievable!

Benedict

What she does in her personal life is of zero concern to me and should be of zero concern to anyone.

Oh, but it does speak to her character.  One could liken it to the "indiscretions" in Bill Clinton's personal life became big news, and Larry Craig's airport bathroom incident, and John Edwards' affair, and more politicians than I can remember their names , but in this case, it actually speaks to the strength of her character as opposed to a flaw in it.

The vice president doesn't actually get to decide who becomes a Supreme Court Justice. All she can do is discuss with McCain who the choices are. Then he recommends a person for the position but he doesn't get to decide if the person actually becomes a Justice. It has to go before congress and be approved by them. And Pelosi, a democrat, in a democrat congress, has a lot of pull. And a candidate who is republican is not necessarily going to have the overturning of Roe v Wade as his/her primary agenda.

So, let's pretend that McCain passes away while in office. Palin succeeds by our order of succession and becomes president. And has the chance to recommend a person for the Supreme Court. That doesn't mean her choice becomes a Justice.

I've said it before so I will say it again, in the hopes that some actually reads it. Does anyone (granted, you might have to be over 40 to remember) Clarence Thomas and the circus that was?

And again, in spite of all the republican presidents we've had, with Reagan overtly courting the religious right, Roe v Wade has stood the test of time.

I think Palin is against federally funded abortions for religious and fiscal reasons. It seems she would rather leave that decision to the states. Which could make it tougher on women in some states to keep their freedom of choice. Again, the vice president doesn't get to repeal a Supreme Court decision, let alone, have sole choice in picking the candidates.

So, does anyone draw the line of abortion at allowing live births to die? It's called induced labor abortion. The labor is started with medicine and the fetus is delivered. Many times, the infant draws a breath and keeps breathing on his/her own. Some live just a few minutes and some live for 8 hours and are disposed with the other bio-hazard materials.

What about a litter of pups? If a pup doesn't take a breath should he/she be considered a still birth? What if the pup breathes but the litter wasn't wanted?

I don't have all the answers and I don't think Palin is going to overturn the decision but what procedures are we deciding on? And, at what point is it no longer abortion but becomes infanticide?

Perhaps, I should have saved that for another thread.

OTOH, I understand the desire not to let someone into power whom you think could stand a chance at removing this ability of choice.

I, for one, don't want to see medicine socialized. But then, in my own provincial way, I don't like socialism, so that could be based on my own beliefs.

Myra

ron2

But that doesn't make their article "fact" or even researched.

Prove them wrong, then.  I've yet to hear of anybody who has.  But I'm certainly willing to consider any opposing facts (with cites) you can present that contradicts their conclusion.

I'm not ignoring you. Someone else beat me to it as to providing you with the proof you asked for. I didn't want to be redundant. I had to go to work today, millions are depending on me.

ron2

I'm not ignoring you. Someone else beat me to it as to providing you with the proof you asked for. I didn't want to be redundant.

I've yet to see one iota of proof.

To prove Politifact's article wrong, you'd have to prove that Fannie Mae's internal accounting problems (the subject that McCain was addressing) directly caused the subprime mortgage problem.  They didn't.

cakana

By the way, did you ever find out about the contributions that Obama received? I'm honestly just curious if it's true or not.

Politifact has an article up addressing it -- Looks like it's true that Obama has received the most contributions from Fannie/Freddie of any member of Congress.  What McCain didn't note (and I'm certainly willing to concede that he's not the only one in the race who tends to leave out qualifying statements ) is that McCain was referencing contributions from regular employees of Fannie/Freddie.

What McCain didn't mention is that he's received more in donations from Fannie/Freddie board members and lobbyists (who aren't considered employees) than Obama.

To sum it up, according to Politifact Obama has received $126,349 from Fannie/Freddie employees and $16,000 from Fannie/Freddie board members and lobbyists.  That makes his grand total $142,349.

McCain has received a grand total of $116,000 from Fannie/Freddie board members and lobbyists.

Full article here

Myra

I've yet to see one iota of proof.

So, someone else bringing quoted text from the congressional record of 2006 isn't proof to you? Well I don't know where you live and I may not have the time to physically bring you a printed version of the congressional record. And more than likely, you would reject it, anyway, in favor of your site. A site that was trying to accuse McCain of not actually working against problems that could be created by Fannie Mae, even though he said he was. Basically, calling him a liar. And the congressional record says otherwise. Which means your site was creating fiction.

I can't help you if you think the site you link is more "fair and impartial" than the congressional record.

Could McCain possibly think that Fannie Mae and Freddi Mac problems are related to the subprime mortgage? It could happen, especially since Fannie Mae deals in those. But even if McCain was in error, it is an error of perspective or incomplete information, not of malicious intent. And does not change the fact that the politifact site was calling him a liar about his working in congress to provide more oversight when the record shows he did work on it. The record you now reject because it doesn't jive with politifact.

You have your beliefs and bless you for them. See you at the polls.

ron2

So, someone else bringing quoted text from the congressional record of 2006 isn't proof to you? Well I don't know where you live and I may not have the time to physically bring you a printed version of the congressional record. And more than likely, you would reject it, anyway, in favor of your site. A site that was trying to accuse McCain of not actually working against problems that could be created by Fannie Mae, even though he said he was. Basically, calling him a liar. And the congressional record says otherwise. Which means your site was creating fiction.

We must be on different planets.  The Politifact article I'm referencing clearly acknowledges McCain's support of the 2006 legislation, and in fact quotes the exact same pertinent sentence from the Congressional Record.  From the Politifact article:

McCain was referring to his 2006 decision to sign on to a Republican-led regulatory overhaul of the mortgage-financing firms, which both went through multibillion-dollar accounting scandals earlier in the decade. The occasion that prompted McCain’s involvement was the release of a 340-page report from the Office of Federal Housing Enterprise Oversight that concluded that Fannie Mae had manipulated earnings and violated basic accounting principles. It describes an “arrogant and unethical corporate culture” in which executives were more concerned about their bonuses than meeting the company’s housing mission.

The findings, based on a 27-month investigation and resulting in a $400-million fine paid to the government, prompted McCain to join other critics and call for more scrutiny of Fannie and its sibling, Freddie Mac. “If Congress does not act, American taxpayers will continue to be exposed to the enormous risk that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac pose to the housing market, the overall financial system, and the economy as a whole,” McCain declared in a May 26, 2006, news release.

glenmar

 

Ummmm, so someone who has chose to abort a child has a character flaw?

I *think* she meant that Palin wasn't just talking 'pro-life' she was living it too.  Saying that not just playing lip service to something but acting on her beliefs was strength of character, since not everyone does.  At least that's how I took it. 

I read the article you linked on the writer who criticized Palin for going ahead with the birth of her child, Trig, diagnosed with downs syndrome. And that he felt they were creating a financial burden on all of us (I don't know how) and that it would have been morally superior to abort the fetus. And the article points out that this smacks of the "racial purity" line fo Hitler's aryan nation. I, OTOH, don't think the writer of the was even thinking of genetic purity or any actual welfare of the child, the Palins, or anyone else. I think the criticism of Palin was simply because she is a republican.

There are times, in my own humble opinion, when I think morality gets obscured by party politics.

Myra

We must be on different planets.  The Politifact article I'm referencing clearly acknowledges McCain's support of the 2006 legislation, and in fact quotes the exact same pertinent sentence from the Congressional Record. 

You are right. Most of their article is about the congressional session in question. Perhaps it's the backhanded insult at the end wherein they deem McCain's statement as "barely true." Isn't that like "a little bit pregnant" or am I mixing metaphors?

I would like you to notice something, as much of what I say gets taken out of context or something else is read into it. Please, re-read the first sentence of my reply to you in this post. Then read it again. And then, again.

The article does mention McCain's involvement to get more controls on GSEs.

I realize you don't want to accept ariel's quote of the record but here it is again.

"I join as a cosponsor of the Federal Housing Enterprise Regulatory Reform Act of 2005, S. 190, to underscore my support for quick passage of GSE regulatory reform legislation. If Congress does not act, American taxpayers will continue to be exposed to the enormous risk that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac pose to the housing market, the overall financial system, and the economy as a whole.

I urge my colleagues to support swift action on this GSE reform legislation."

Sounds like a warning to me. So, the politifact article is also reporting that the Obama camp called that a myth, saying that this warning from McCain did not exist. And that politifact calls the warning "barely true."  Was that necessary? Why couldn't they simply say that McCain did, in fact, issue a warning and leave it at that? "Barely true" is editorializing, imo.

I also notice that the article said the oversight was failing because of congress. Would that be our largely democrat congress?

What other statements might be barely true or stretched? How about Gore inventing the internet?

Again, you are right, the politifact article did mention McCain's involvement in stricter control of GSEs. A measure that was voted down by others, many times. In congress. What kind of congress was it? If we're going to talk about facts, let's have all the facts, not just ones that suit a particular viewpoint.

ron2

Myra

We must be on different planets.  The Politifact article I'm referencing clearly acknowledges McCain's support of the 2006 legislation, and in fact quotes the exact same pertinent sentence from the Congressional Record. 

You are right. Most of their article is about the congressional session in question. Perhaps it's the backhanded insult at the end wherein they deem McCain's statement as "barely true." Isn't that like "a little bit pregnant" or am I mixing metaphors?

I would like you to notice something, as much of what I say gets taken out of context or something else is read into it. Please, re-read the first sentence of my reply to you in this post. Then read it again. And then, again.

The article does mention McCain's involvement to get more controls on GSEs.

I realize you don't want to accept ariel's quote of the record but here it is again.

"I join as a cosponsor of the Federal Housing Enterprise Regulatory Reform Act of 2005, S. 190, to underscore my support for quick passage of GSE regulatory reform legislation. If Congress does not act, American taxpayers will continue to be exposed to the enormous risk that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac pose to the housing market, the overall financial system, and the economy as a whole.

I urge my colleagues to support swift action on this GSE reform legislation."

Sounds like a warning to me. So, the politifact article is also reporting that the Obama camp called that a myth, saying that this warning from McCain did not exist. And that politifact calls the warning "barely true."  Was that necessary? Why couldn't they simply say that McCain did, in fact, issue a warning and leave it at that? "Barely true" is editorializing, imo.

I also notice that the article said the oversight was failing because of congress. Would that be our largely democrat congress?

What other statements might be barely true or stretched? How about Gore inventing the internet?

Again, you are right, the politifact article did mention McCain's involvement in stricter control of GSEs. A measure that was voted down by others, many times. In congress. What kind of congress was it? If we're going to talk about facts, let's have all the facts, not just ones that suit a particular viewpoint.

C'mon, Ron.  If you know politics, you know that this stuff exists on both sides of the divide.  Why doesn't everyone just admit that they are biased toward either the Republican or the Democratic viewpoints, and stop the smoke and mirrors about the key players???

spiritdogs

C'mon, Ron.  If you know politics, you know that this stuff exists on both sides of the divide.  Why doesn't everyone just admit that they are biased toward either the Republican or the Democratic viewpoints, and stop the smoke and mirrors about the key players

As always, an excellent post.

ron2

I...I think the criticism of Palin was simply because she is a republican.

There are times, in my own humble opinion, when I think morality gets obscured by party politics.

I may be way off base here, and some may think this comment is brave, but every time I read this defense from you, that people "pick on Palin" because she is a republican I have this same thought: Do you think that she (potentially or in reality) faces more discrimination, or flack, because of her political party than Barack Obama does because he is black or "muslim" (quoted for obvious reasons)? He could face discrimination because he is democrat... and she because she's a woman... This kind of thinking could go on and on.

alieliza

I may be way off base here, and some may think this comment is brave, but every time I read this defense from you, that people "pick on Palin" because she is a republican I have this same thought: Do you think that she (potentially or in reality) faces more discrimination, or flack, because of her political party than Barack Obama does because he is black or "muslim" (quoted for obvious reasons)? He could face discrimination because he is democrat... and she because she's a woman... This kind of thinking could go on and on

You raise a good point even though you are tired of me saying that. I'm getting tired of saying, too. And I just might have a good reason for saying, too. You nearly lend your credence to that in your post.

Could Obama be criticized merely for being a democrat? Sure. Is that the motivation of some? Certainly. I also think Palin gets some descrimination because she is a woman. And certainly because of her religious views. One person has stated simply not liking Palin. Locally, I've heard one person mention that Obama might have a tough time getting elected because he is black. Another person, thought it is more accurate to describe Obama as african-arab-american and is not comfortable with an arab in the white house. I disregarded that notion as silly. Obama is as american as you or I am. No stinking hyphen. I think many people are voting for Obama precisely because he is democrat, though justifying it to themselves in other ways, just as some might accuse me of doing the same. But seriously, I'm a big, white boy working with quite a few other big white boys and a number of hispanics and no one's spending their time running down Obama. When we do discuss politics, I'm usually talking about the strengths of Palin's government skills and her knowledge of energy and a few of the other guys are saying she's hot. That's not to say that racism doesn't exist it's just that, around here, Palin's a more exciting candidate. I value her because she speaks her mind, which is not always what people want to hear. Kind of like me. I speak my mind, even if it's not what someone else wanted to hear. And yeah, I catch heck for it, too. (You think?)

BTW, we also have people from a temp service helping us. They are usually african-american. You know what we talk about? Dallas Cowboys and football. Whatever floats your boat. What's the fall line-up going to be? We talk about Neon Dion because he owns a huge house in this little town we're working in. How T.O. is as talented as Sanders, able to play so many positions and in doing so, plays a better game. I could go on but it might bore some people. As well as being kind of off topic.