Say No to Sarah - Caution, Very Graphic Video

Truley

If Sarah Palin would shift her stance on abortion in terms of incest and rape, advocate for better sex education beyond abstinence, and decided to stop the slaughter of wolves by something that flies in the air, and gives a thought to the environment and OUR impact on it, I would vote for her, and that is the honest truth. I like  John McCain, and even for a bit thought he was what we needed. I am concerned about his age and health, I don't see his being a POW as the be all end all of his campaign, and I am turned off by it, yes he served, yes he was a prisoner, and while I admire his dedication to our country, he did not do any more than thousands of others who have fought our wars in the past, or here in the now. It should NOT be part of what they are trying to tell us. I had an uncle by marriage die, DIE on his birthday on a land mine in Vietnam, my neighbor was there, so was his brother, my grandfather served overseas in WWII, and just recently a brother in law who has been to Iraq twice since it started. The first time guarding an ammo dump, the second time dismantling IED's, so don't label me un patriotic.

 

 I will not support the Obama ticket for many reasons. And the killing of wolves rates very low on my list of issues. If there were two choices of equal merit and the only issue dividing them was the killing of wolves then and only then would that sway my vote. Besides I find that many animal lovers have no real understanding of conservation. They do not like hunting but they fail to understand that in today's world controlled hunting is needed.

 

 As for the issues, for me first and foremost above all others is our nations national security. The seal of the United States of America shows an eagle, in one claw is grasped the Olive branch ,the symbol of peace but in the other is grasped a sheaf of arrows, the symbol of military might and the willingness to use it. The Eagles chest is protected by a shield in the form of the flag, a symbol of strength.

 

 Obama has been clear on his intentions to cut the military, to cut weapons research, to cut missile deployment, and in my opinion he intends to try and lead this country with naught but an olive branch, many great leaders have attempted this in the past to their and/or their countries detriment.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kRGru2CPC4E&feature=related

  

 You say that his service and his time as a POW have no bearing on the race yet in my opinion because of this McCain  knows the truth, that peace is only achieved with a ready sword in hand, and because of his own sacrifice and the sacrifice of many he knew that did not return, he also understands the price that must be paid for any conflict. Only a man of war truly works for peace. Should peace not be possible then I trust McCain with the lives of our young men and women far more than I trust Obama. I trust McCain to make sure my sons and the sons of others will be equipped with all they need should conflict be required. He has witnessed personally the cost of war and I trust him to not lead us into one unless there is no other course.

 

 Those who hate out country the most will not be impressed by the extended olive branch, unless that olive branch is backed up by a strong military.

 

 I served this great country during the cold war and more specifically during the reign of our CIC Carter. I believe Carter to be a man of peace and I have great respect for him as a man of peace, but he was our poorest and weakest president during a time of great stress for our country. He extended the olive branch and he laid aside the sword. I see Obama as another Carter, although worse in many cases due to his beliefs in socialism. His ties to radicals also concern me. I know that my church has shaped me, that the beliefs taught each Sunday at my church are ingrained in my soul, they help form a solid platform under me that assists me with daily decisions and they are a compass that I use every day. Most people are like this, the beliefs they hold dear shape them and guide them, I cannot believe that Obama has sat under this teaching for 20 years without being somehow shaped by the teaching. I have studied this Black Liberation theology extensively since this first came out in the news and it concerns me. It concerned Oprah enough that she left, fearing that the teachings and beliefs of the church might hurt her public image.

 

 I respect Obama and I believe that he is sincere in his desire to lead and his vision of that leadership. I applaud him and our country for at last reaching the peak where a black man can run for the highest office in out great country. But I believe his vision is flawed, I believe he will weaken our country both economically and politically therefore he will not have my vote.

 

  As for the other issues, well I am pro-life for instance, but I would still be voting for McCain even if he were not, and even if he had chosen a more liberal running mate, so the fact that they are both pro life is a plus but it is not the reason for my choice.  As for some of Palin’s more right wing views, again to me those are not central, the safety and prosperity of the country far outweigh the smaller issues.

 

BCMixs

  Again, please do your research before making claims, the eskimos (not the first americans, btw, since AK was late to the Union and other groups in the lower 48 were truly the first "Americans" like the Powhatan Indians, here in my area) are granted a great deal of exceptions to Alaska's hunting regulations.  As I said, they are permitted to hunt polar bears where no one else is. 

Well, I read history books and books on anthropology, too. Eskimos were in Alaska before there was a lower 48, and of course, before Alaska was admitted to the union. First Americans applies aboriginal people in an area, presumed to be the first settlers in what is now known as the north american continent, not necessarily the USA, as a govermental institution. I have also read in history books ( I could recommend that you do some reading, too, as you so thoughtfully advised me to do) That, at one point, the Bering Sea was frozen in some places creating a bridge of ice across the Bering Strait. It is thought by educated anthropologists who contribute to history books that possibly people from Asia or Siberia migrated across, possibly becoming first americans. It is not beyond possibility that some of the stayed in what is now Alaska. Interesting that you would deny their native status as first people on the north american continent because Palin is a republican.

So, alright, lets address the birth control issue, even though the op is about wolf conservation.

No birth control is 100 % effective. Even condoms are only given a 97 % effectiveness. The best way to avoid pregnancy is abstinence. I would amend and say at least abstinence from the one activity that results in pregnancy. But there's the harsh reality of life. You also don't always get to do what you want to do just because you want to do it. At least, that's what I learned from adults when I was growing up. BTW, I was a virgin until after high school. It can be done. Palin's daughter's situation is no reflection on the upbringing she had and it doesn't not make Palin a hypocrite nor does it make abstinence and undoable solution. That's all polemic effluvia because Palin is a republican. When I was growing up, it was impressed upon me to not get a girl pregnant, to take other measures should the urge arise and that, if I still had encountered that situation, I had better be prepared to get married. So, guess what, I was abstinent. That doesn't mean we can't be compassionate when a situation such as this arises and I value the honesty. I can also be compassionate. For those that think abstinence is unfair, here's a kleenex to dry the tears. I'm not totally heartless.

BCMixs

The hunting of wolves and bears is not done to provide food for families, it's done to control the population of predators in an attempt to stabilize the population of their prey. However, the true effects of the program on moose and caribou populations are difficult to confirm.  "The exact number of moose or caribou saved by thinning wolf populations is hard to determine. Fish and Game's ungulate survival calculations are based on an average consumption of approximately 12 moose or 24 caribou per wolf per year."

So, closer to op, you're telling me that what the caribou population means to the people of darker skin and dark hair who came to alaska millenia ago but can't be called first americans because Alaska was late to be unionized, doesn't matter? Are eskimo not allowed to hunt caribou making a mention of it either moot or inaccurate? Or, that they are only allowed to hunt polar bears but not caribou or even seal?

Perhaps, closer to the op is how easy it is to second guess the Alaska conservation program now, since Palin is a republican and running for vice pres? And not a single person responded to my mention of the fed program and Yellowstone. She is doing no worse than the feds. And, as I said, such programs would go on, even if Obama or Clinton were pres, but their democrats, which, I guess, makes it okay.

And you're right, this thread is not about Obama, or his refusal to honor the flag that McCain literally paid blood, sweat, and tears for, or the fact that he often refers to his muslim faith while professing christianity, or the fact that he hasn't presented his birth certificate as there is a question about his citizenship.

It's about Palin taking care of business in the most cost effective manner possible and that we should reject her because of that. Side issues being that she has a human family that makes mistakes, too. And even though I was told to abstain before marriage, I didn't either. Are you going to bad mouth my mom because I didn't wait until marriage? Fair is fair, I would imagine.

Not only the original post,but every single one that followed.If others add further reasons why they don't want her in office it is still "on topic".People are entitled to their opinions.It's not the moderators responsability to tell everyone how to feel about public officials.What I expect of people here is to treat EACH OTHER with respect.I'm not seeing much of that on the last few pages of this thread.Play nice folks.We all come here because we love dogs,some of us care about their ancestors too.

Tena

 

ron2

 

No birth control is 100 % effective. Even condoms are only given a 97 % effectiveness. The best way to avoid pregnancy is abstinence. I would amend and say at least abstinence from the one activity that results in pregnancy. But there's the harsh reality of life. You also don't always get to do what you want to do just because you want to do it. At least, that's what I learned from adults when I was growing up. BTW, I was a virgin until after high school. It can be done. Palin's daughter's situation is no reflection on the upbringing she had and it doesn't not make Palin a hypocrite nor does it make abstinence and undoable solution. That's all polemic effluvia because Palin is a republican. When I was growing up, it was impressed upon me to not get a girl pregnant, to take other measures should the urge arise and that, if I still had encountered that situation, I had better be prepared to get married. So, guess what, I was abstinent. That doesn't mean we can't be compassionate when a situation such as this arises and I value the honesty. I can also be compassionate. For those that think abstinence is unfair, here's a kleenex to dry the tears. I'm not totally heartless..

 

It has nothing to do with abstinence being unfair--it's just plain unrealistic.  Honestly, I can't see how anyone who has even a close to realistic view of teenagers would think that only teaching abstinence would be a good idea.  There have been studies that suggest abstinence only's ineffectiveness.

Growing up sex education was pretty open.  Between my mom and school, I knew my options as far as birth control, etc went.  Although abstinence was encouraged, birth control was taught.  I did not have sex until I was 19 and have only had one partner.  When DH was growing up, his education was abstinence only.  All he was told about sex was that he should not have it until marriage and he was home schooled until HS.  He learned about condom use from MTV.  His first partner was when he was 17 (and was not me), his brother had 7 partners before he married at age 20, his younger sister began being active at age 14 and has had her first child at age 18.

 

 

 Personally I think any parent who depends on the state to teach their child all about sex and all about birth control is being foolish.  It does not matter what the state teaches, the parent should be instructing the child on this subject. If the state teaches abstinence and you disagree then instruct your child in the various means of birth control. If the state teaches birth control and you believe in abstinence then teach your child abstinence.

 I fall in the middle, I teach my sons abstinence, I teach them that in my opinion they are not mature enough for sex and that the best way to avoid STD's and pregnancies is to abstain, but I also teach them about birth control because I know that I also taught them not to lie, but they have on occasion, I also taught them to be diligent in getting their work done but they goof off on occasion so I can assume that my teaching them abstinence could end in their going off and having sex so I want them to know the issues, the risks and the protections available.

 It just seems like a common sense thing to me, and personally I do not care what the state teaches on it. In my opinion the state should stick to teaching them the normal subjects, math, science, English, social studies etc and they should leave moral issues to the parents. And with that being said, parents need to get off their butts and teach their kids and stop depending on the state to raise them.

 And in the end the only true 100% form of birth control that works, the one that will not leave emotional scars from abortions at a young age, the one that will not leave you with an STD to deal with and the one that will ensure that you do not become a mother or a father is abstinence. All others have risks.

content removed - no personal attacks please

Seriously, how do you turn this:

BCMixs:

The hunting of wolves and bears is not done to provide food for families, it's done to control the population of predators in an attempt to stabilize the population of their prey. However, the true effects of the program on moose and caribou populations are difficult to confirm.  "The exact number of moose or caribou saved by thinning wolf populations is hard to determine. Fish and Game's ungulate survival calculations are based on an average consumption of approximately 12 moose or 24 caribou per wolf per year."

So, closer to op, you're telling me that what the caribou population means to the people of darker skin and dark hair who came to alaska millenia ago but can't be called first americans because Alaska was late to be unionized, doesn't matter? Are eskimo not allowed to hunt caribou making a mention of it either moot or inaccurate? Or, that they are only allowed to hunt polar bears but not caribou or even seal?

I don't even know where you pulled that out of!  Native whatevers are permitted to hunt when others are restricted.  They're allowed to hunt species that others are prohibited from, like the polar bears.  They're not going to go hungry, because as a population they are one of the most heavily subsidized in the state.  In fact, every year, every Alaskan resident gets a check JUST FOR LIVING THERE!  FWIW, when predator control is instituted to preserve herd numbers, all hunting (except for the eskimos) is suspended.  If you're seriously concerned or interested in Alaska's conservations policies, check out their website.  As far as Yellowstone, they're not aerial hunting and they're not mailing out propoganda about their management programs just before a ballot question where the residents decide on the issue (repeatedly, again and again this issue has been put before the people as well as the courts) and using state funds to sway public opinion.

 

BCMixs

original content removed 

That's uncalled for.

BCMixs

In fact, every year, every Alaskan resident gets a check JUST FOR LIVING THERE! 

Really, news to me. I'll have to ask Jeano.

BCMixs

As far as Yellowstone, they're not aerial hunting

Yes, they are and they do.

And the fact that Palin is a republican will not change those things.

How come there was no outcry about wolves before Palin was announced as VP candidate? I doubt the sincerity now, as it becomes a tool to bash a republican.

 

 

Alaska residents get an annual royalty dividend, have since 1982. I wouldn't say they get it for nothing, they pay much more for gas there.

ron2

BCMixs

As far as Yellowstone, they're not aerial hunting

Yes, they are and they do.

No they're not, a judge filed an injunction in July that prevented the plan from going forward, check your facts. 

ron2

How come there was no outcry about wolves before Palin was announced as VP candidate? I doubt the sincerity now, as it becomes a tool to bash a republican.

There was an outcry, in Alaska.  The issues has been voted on by the Alaskan residents several times.  The reason it becomes an issue now is that the past practices of a candidate is the only way of predicting what they might do in the future, or at a minimum, where they stand on a particular practice, like drilling, predator control, sex ed, taxes, etc.  For animal lovers, how a candidate stands or behaves with animals is an issue, take the guy (name escapes me) who had his dog on the roof of the car, many people wouldn't vote for him based solely on that one act. 

BCMixs

There was an outcry, in Alaska.  The issues has been voted on by the Alaskan residents several times

Yes they voted on it and the voters said NO.

http://www.juneauempire.com/stories/082708/sta_323599770.shtml

 

ANCHORAGE - Alaska residents went to the polls Tuesday to vote on a ballot initiative that, if passed, would have ended the state's predator control program as now conducted.

With 70 percent of the precincts reporting, the measure lost with more than 55 percent of voters saying no.

Ballot Measure 2 would have prohibited the shooting of wolves and bears either from the air or once a plane has landed, unless the commissioner of the Alaska Department of Fish and Game found that a "biological emergency" existed and had adequate scientific proof.

OK, lets talk about abstinence only sex ed, whether at home or at school, based on the perception of an old fart. We were taught NOTHING about sex, or our bodies in school. The health department offered a film strip on menstruation....at night...in the basement as if it were a shameful thing. No words about the act of sex. I grew up in a home where discussion of sex was soundly discouraged and in fact on the rare occassions that I was able to broach the topic, my mom made sex sound like something so gawd awful a normal person would have hidden under the bed in fear of it. I'm sure that was her intent. Me, however, being the wanting to know for myself kind of gal that I was, well, lets just say I had to find out for myself. What I found had nothing to do with the line I'd been fed. Not one of my three sisters went into marriage as a virgin, and they are older farts than I am. When knowledge is withheld or deliberately tainted, kids will find out the answers for themselves, and often with sad results. Hello? What the heck were the sixties all about?? Shrugging off the repressive teachings of our parents and adult role models. My sons were taught more openly, more honestly and from a very young age. They are now 29 and almost 31. I have no grandchildren, either planned or otherwise. I'm not saying they haven't had sex because I know better, but they also knew about responsibility and that it was never entirely up to the woman to take care of BC. My sons were taught MY beliefs, but they were also taught to be responsible for their own actions. I will state again, if PARENTS were doing their jobs, schools would not have to provide sex ed. And I don't mean in the manner that my mother "taught" me about sex, with scare and fear tactics. But with honesty and openness and all the time sharing their own moral standards and values, but providing information to allow said children to make informed and educated choices, regardless of the running rampent hormones. I think that the bottom line for me in this whole situation is that Sarah Palin was not chosen to be the VP running mate because of her political record, because of her intelligence or anything other than the fact that she doesn't have a penis, and perhaps that lack would win voters. To me, that dumps the Womans Movement, Equal Rights, etc, right down the proverbial toilet.

 I will not support the Obama ticket for many reasons. And the killing of wolves rates very low on my list of issues. If there were two choices of equal merit and the only issue dividing them was the killing of wolves then and only then would that sway my vote. Besides I find that many animal lovers have no real understanding of conservation. They do not like hunting but they fail to understand that in today's world controlled hunting is needed.

I respect your right to vote for whom you will. What I don't like, and that goes for both sides, is using nasty language, potshots, name spins and the like to make a point. If you want your stance respected, you have to respect everyone equally. As for animal conservation, I too have no place for people who cry about hunting, trapping and the like. I do not like canned hunts, but I have nothing against hunting to feed a family.

As for the issues, for me first and foremost above all others is our nations national security. The seal of the United States of America shows an eagle, in one claw is grasped the Olive branch ,the symbol of peace but in the other is grasped a sheaf of arrows, the symbol of military might and the willingness to use it. The Eagles chest is protected by a shield in the form of the flag, a symbol of strength.

 

 Obama has been clear on his intentions to cut the military, to cut weapons research, to cut missile deployment, and in my opinion he intends to try and lead this country with naught but an olive branch, many great leaders have attempted this in the past to their and/or their countries detriment.

 

I for one, am sick and tired of holding the hands of other nations. Why do we have to be the ones to bail other countries out ? Why can't we sit at home and let someone else take care of the bickering nations? I am not saying pull everyone home, but why is it that we as a nation have to be the ones that jump first? And what is wrong with offering an olive branch with clear and honest sincerity? Switzerland has done if for years and no one seems to hate them. They don't have bombers coming after them, they don't have people burning their flag. So, I want a president that is going to think about the people who live and work in America, I want a president that is more about American's first, other people second.

 

Ahh, the issue's.  Yeah abortion, aerial killing of wolves and bears are kind of low on the pole, but they are a concern because they are a weather vane of a person's standings. I personally am concerned with:

 

Jobs in America: In the last 4 years more and more jobs have moved overseas with no penalties to the companies that do it. I call health insurance companies all day, and 85% of the time my call in answered by a phone not within our borders. And I can tell you the person on the other end has no connection to us, none, so there is no concern for some health issue's. It's just the same boring voice, with the same boring and often wrong script. They cannot think outside the box if you ask a question that they are not scripted to handle. American insurance companies need to have people here in America answering their phones for the people they cover. And I ask you if I am seeing this in the health insurance field...what other fields are doing the same thing?

 

To much dependence on Foreign oil: Why oh why are we so far behind other countries in finding other ways to fuel America? Why does it cost so much money to buy a hybrid car? Why bother making them if they are so dang expensive the majority of American's can afford one? We are this superpower, yet we can't make a synthetic fuel that works? Or how about a car that gets more than 50 miles to the gallon as the standard, instead of the exception? Do we need to drill here on our own ground, heck no, we need alternative options, cheaper options, someone please find a way to power a car on something that is cheap to make.

 

Housing, Welfare. Stupid laws, Immigration and Taxes: (not in that order)Stop giving the big guy the breaks, stop rewarding sloth, and lets find something to do with all the abandoned houses in the cities, give the neighborhoods back to people, put family's into these homes, find alternative cheaper ways to build homes if you must, there are old, very old world building techniques that are perfect and cost effective.  Get rid of stupid laws and lawsuits. Start giving some better benefits to people who actually work day in and day out. If your on government sub's and have another child, you should lose money, not get more. Oh, and  let's put a restriction on Immigration till things are a little more tidy around here.

 

Government Service, Police, Education: No elected official from here on out should ever get another raise, not ever. Instead let's pay our police offices more, and our teachers too, and heck why don't we find a way to offer better education for less money.

 

Our Part of the Planet: If you think there is no such thing as Global warming, you need glasses, really big bifocals. We lose so much each day. 20 years ago it was "Use plastic, save a tree"...now we are back to paper or totes, because guess what, plastic is the worse thing for the environment ever, oh and it's a by product of fossil fuels....go figure, more money for the oil man.

 

I want to ask, for those that are so concerned with National Security. If we quietly went home and minded our own business, but let it be known that our borders and right to live the way we choose would still be enforced and defended, do you really think it would make us look weak and ineffective?

 

What the heck were the sixties all about??

 

getting high?

glenmar

I think that the bottom line for me in this whole situation is that Sarah Palin was not chosen to be the VP running mate because of her political record, because of her intelligence or anything other than the fact that she doesn't have a penis, and perhaps that lack would win voters. To me, that dumps the Womans Movement, Equal Rights, etc, right down the proverbial toilet.

 So because you *think* you know the reasons they chose her, that moves the Womans Movement backwards? So instead you would rather have no woman in the race, right? Because that would be a step forward?

I'm not sure why you think that was the sole reason she was nominated, but to me that's ridiculous. There was a time not that long ago when women would not have been considered at all. Isn't part of the woman's movement having women in positions historically dominated by men? This is still a position of power, and incredible power if you consider who would be president in the event of a death. The simple fact that a woman can be nominated with the belief that not only will she not hurt the ticket, but in fact enhance it seems to be a step forward to me.  If McCain gets elected and she is then VP, how much more used to the idea will conservative/traditional america be of a woman in the whitehouse. I'm assuming it would be easier for America to then cast a vote for a woman president the next time around.. forget VP.   Progress.

Too busy looking at the trees to see the forest.

dgriego

alieliza

I don't think Bonita was referring to her eldest daughter, rather her youngest son.

 The post was making reference that Palin was using her daughter in order to win votes.

I am not great at cut and paste but I did go back and re read my own post.... spelling mistakes aside  the first thing I said was my reasons were NOT PC.....   Bonita of Bwana wrote the following post at 09-05-2008 2:42 PM:

SNIP>My reasons are not as PC..... Look I have two duaghters who became pregnant out of "wedlock" One later married and then eventually divoced her DH , ( we all adored him)the other simply has crap taste and we were all thrilled when they did not get married.

SNIP>

MY 5 daughters were taught about Birth Control ,  they were also taught the ONLY sure thing birth control was a Nickle between your knees!

Correct me if I am waaaaay off but in reading the thread backwards a couple of things keep popping up.

#1 Abortion and Anti Gay Family Benefits   **** this to me is telling me what is and is not "moral".  

#2 There was a great deal of "confusion" over birth order and who had who.... Frankly I don't care. I AM raising 5 grandkids.  The economy sucks so badly the parents of 3 simply can not make it on their own, the mother of 2 has an addiction problem, is actively in treatment and making increasingly concentrated efforts towards not just her recovery but not screwing up her children's lives.   She may be taking the back seat on raising them but there is no confusion on who had who,  Who is Mom and Who is Grandma.  She contributes what she is able to and My husband and I pay for everything else. There goes our retirement, but we do not think you and your family should pay to raise our family. And if the cut taxes , reduce welfare and deny aide mentality wins there would not be anything if we we able to bring ourselves to ask for assistance.

#3 The general Right Consensus that  "welfare people" are uninterested in improving themselves, or supporting themselves or making an honest effort to sustain their family and that it is the fault of the Liberals.  

Sort of a Darned if you do , darned if you don't position.    I have dear friends who are gay and adopted 4 high risk siblings from a horribly abusive home.  They are in their late 50s and early 60s but they stepped up when these children would have been guests of the Foster care system  until one or all were separated  and possibly adopted out.  They have sacrificed their comfort, financial ease and peace of mind to give the 4,  the first home that ever gave a darn about them.   They have NO Gay Family Benefits.... every i is dotted and t is crossed by paying attorneys to protect the rights that a "regular" family can count on....    that would include the family that created these kids, molested them from infancy on and broke too many bones to count. The father who intentionally kept breeding kids  who would absolutely have the same genetic disorder... he is a MIT grad the Mother is barely above seriously Retarded... the oldest child has had 2 open heart surgeries by age 6 and will need at least one more. THAT "family" had rights..... THEY got welfare, free medical and food stamps.  They got free legal until the state finally was able to sever the parental rights and the GAY foster family who taught the kids to be more than wild frighten animals were able to proudly adopt them.  No Welfare, No Family Rights .... just a ton of LOVE.  The birth parents have moved from the state in the past couple of months since she is pregnant again...

Abortion.   Hey I could not have one.  And Birth control did NOT work for me, It did not work for my daughter.  But I would NEVER require anyone to have a child who did not feel they were ready, right and wanting it.   So the Old Roe V Wade...I remember when it was NOT a given. I had to sigh when I read the comment about hysteria concerning it.   I guess it would really help if you lived through the days of girls being sent away to quietly have a baby and surrender it for adoption to save the family name, when rape victims had no choice and the control of your body was governed by the legislature.  As a young teen I was educated by a mom who never wanted me to "get in trouble"   The first man I was with was my first husband.  Of my 5 daughters the first man 4 of them were with was their husbands ( the first for one) . The daughter who had children by two men outside of wedlock did them a huge favor.   Would it have been "better" for her not to have had sex with losers? Absolutely !!  Would it have been better for me to not be blessed by the two kids? NEVER.    They will have a rougher row to hoe but they will be taught the same values and at the same time taught how intensily loved and wonderful they are.  Reading the articles written by Palin and in interviews with Palin  Abortion would not be available.... Had my daughter concieved either of her two gorgeous kids while high on crack how could any one , take away this small measure of ?? correction, protection, prevention I don't know what you can call it but I do know she could not raise a profoundly damaged child, she would NOT have been able to begin to clean herself up.  She would not be able to begin to see a future for them as a family. And as the Grandparent How many would I have to raise to prove my love of family or my personal convictions?   This daughter went to Catholic School, was never abused or neglected,  she is sadly a person who fell in Love with a moron and he in turn paid back her blind faith by assuring my idiot daughter that she should at least try his drug once before she could understand his struggle , that she could not get hooked trying it once...... her life was ruined.  We love this young woman.  But we stepped in and are raising her children  because it is the right thing to do for everyone...including the American Tax Payer.  

My remark about Palin was pretty simple.  IMHO.... this is one more celebrity figure who shrugged and says ,  we will raise our granchild and they will get marreid later ... isn't it cool to be wealthy enough to have that option?  Isn't it neat to say on one hand a young unwed mother can't have an abortion, should have very limited funding and assistance  and it is all their fault anyway for having sex and getting knocked up...; but "our"  child is simply postponing her eventual wedding and doing things out of order......' happens' all the time.  It is okay to deny a loving family legal benfits because the same sex issue offends,  it is okay to limit assistance in an economy that has stunk for 8 +years , It is okay to tell the Nation what is and Isn't moral but to question a person who wants to be the Commander in Chief Should something happen to the elected CiC about the state of her/his household is not fair?    When the Press had a field day dogging a first daughter who was less than attractive her parents were lamblasted for being protective.... When the President had a consentual extramarital affair the fault lay with the entire Democratic Party, our morals were damned for something politicians have done since the Romans and Greeks ruled the world.... nasty  yes , unsavory yes... then when his wife rose above and won her own position, and ran to be the candidate THIS list was one of many claiming you could not trust a woman who could forgive, who had put her family above her ego, who was intelligent and strong...OMG she might hit THE button if ticked off.

I said with the first sentence my remarks would NOT be PC.   Considering this thread was not an intentionally supportive let's elect the person in question, I do NOT think statements that question the moral policing intentions of another strong politically savy woman to be in any way

"UNFAIR"

The Neat thing is each of us has our own vote, voice and brain. We can each research, discuss and decide for ourselves.  As long as we respect that right and each other this is not a slam thread it is simply personal perspectives..... If you were uncomfortable with the concept of Nuetering you would not go into a thread that is discussing castration, the whys, hows and ...Whos...

  JMHO   Bonita of Bwana