Sarah Palin

[Archon]

I'm curious as to what the women on this board think of McCain's pick of Gov. Palin for his running mate. Specifically, what do you think of the comments in the news over the past couple of days suggesting that Gov. Palin stay home and take care of her children rather than serve in public office? Guys, you can fell free to weigh in as well, but I'd love to her from the women.

 

[Karma]

isnt it obvious that this was a PLOY? the republicans must think women are stupid. we will be so "ecstatic" that Sarah Palin is on a major party's ticket as the Veep that we will somehow FORGET that Mccain wants to FURTHER shift the face of the Supreme Court and pave the way...to ENSURE that women will LOSE their RIGHT TO CHOOSE!

and just WHO is she anyway? a woman who is a first time governor of a state that has more CARIBOU than actual people? :haha:

That Mccain or anyone ELSE would attempt to compare her to Hillary is a mocking insult to Hillary's accomplishments and abilities.

 

[Firebird]

Amen to that Farrah! Lol. :xyxthumbs:

Not only that but here is a woman who has a daughter whose what 17 years old and pregnant on her SECOND baby and unmarried? Personally, if you can’t control your daughter about teen pregnancy how the hell are you going to assist the President with the U.S.? I find it amusing really. She has little to no experience and comparing her to Hilary is a joke lol. McCain is hoping to get a strong following with women because he chose a woman Vice President. Yet, she wants to abolish a woman’s choice. This country has a large feminist population, the baby boomers, and even the hippies lol. I doubt their campaign will be much success to begin with.

I can’t help but agree that she needs to take care of her family first. Nevermind taking care of this country lol.

 

[Archon]

I'm actually really surprised to hear a woman say that having a family should disqualify her from serving. You know Biden is a single dad, right? Anyway, even James Carvill (sp?) said you can't blame parents who teach their kids well when the kids still choose to act out. He cited himself as an example. I'm no big McCain fan, but I like Palin, big surprise. She well spoken and poised. I'm curious to see how she handles herself in a debate.

 

[Rampage]

I don't think that having a family disqualifies one from serving. I DO think that having a newborn with Down's Syndrome and a pregnant 17-year-old COULD. I also wonder if they had told that girl something other than "keep your legs closed" if she would have gotten pregnant. I find that relevant in how it directly pertains to her policies concerning sex ed and choice. If she couldn't make it work in her own home as a governor with 24-hour security, then what does that say of how it will work for the country? I think that question is fair.

In addition, I am concerned at the alleged abuses of power. There is a lot of disturbing stuff there.

 

[Persephone]

Personally I think any woman who supports taking another woman's right to choose whether she should have a baby or not away is dispicable. This country doesn't need to be run by a persons religious beliefs.

And agreed to what what Rampage, Firebird, and Spells said.

 

[Archon]

I also wonder if they had told that girl something other than "keep your legs closed" if she would have gotten pregnant. I find that relevant in how it directly pertains to her policies concerning sex ed and choice. If she couldn't make it work in her own home as a governor with 24-hour security, then what does that say of how it will work for the country? I think that question is fair.

So you never disobeyed your parents? Awesome, congratulations on that.
As far as her religious beliefs being a detriment to her ability to serve, that makes zero sense. Zero. We all have beliefs, religious, irreligious, or otherwise. Obama has talked extensively about his religious beliefs. In his belief system, abortion is not wrong. Yet no one is upset saying, "Obama is basing his policy on abortion on his religious beliefs." Let's just be consistent.
And I'm still surprised that none of the feminists on here are up in arms about Palin being told she should stay home with her family rather than serve in a public office. She has a husband. Why can't he stay home? Is it because that is the "woman's role"?

 

[Rampage]

So you never disobeyed your parents? Awesome, congratulations on that.

I did disobey my parents, but to make it about that is simplistic. The truth is the idea that she would disobey her parents was, by the numbers, almost a certainty. But since she had no REAL sex-ed, no parent-led conversation in which a common sense was combined with the moral teachings, it was much more likely that she would become pregnant. Studies have shown that states that focus sex-ed on abstinence only (Texas, for example) have had a MUCH smaller decline, if any, in the rates of teen pregnancy compared to states (such as California) with comprehensive sex-ed. That is relevant to how she would lead. Something that failed to work in YOUR home when you have ALL of the advantages (including armed guards) probably will not work for working American families.

In his belief system, abortion is not wrong. Yet no one is upset saying, "Obama is basing his policy on abortion on his religious beliefs." Let's just be consistent.

Actually, you don't know that. If he is like many Christians, especially African-Americans, abortion is wrong FOR HIM. He simply does not favor criminalizing it for the women and doctors who share in such a difficult choice. In this case, it is likely that he is able to separate moral choices from legislation. That is the epitome of freedom, something Republicans talk about but have trouble actually following.

 

[Persephone]

As far as her religious beliefs being a detriment to her ability to serve, that makes zero sense. Zero. We all have beliefs, religious, irreligious, or otherwise.

I think it makes quite a lot of sense. Yes, everyone has their own beliefs, and i'm not trying to insult that right, as you so rudely seem to think. What I AM saying is I don't want to hear about how abortions are wrong, or how an act that was placed decades ago should be overthrown because that ONE person/s doesn't believe it's 'right'. I think it's taking a step BACKWARDS. The presidential canidates [and VP's] need to campaign for what's going to HELP this country as a collective.

In this case, it is likely that he is able to separate moral choices from legislation. That is the epitome of freedom, something Republicans talk about but have trouble actually following.

And I couldn't agree more, Garrick.

 

[Karma]

So you never disobeyed your parents? Awesome, congratulations on that.

i made it an art of disobeying but NOT getting caught (at least 85 % of the time)

As far as her religious beliefs being a detriment to her ability to serve, that makes zero sense. Zero. We all have beliefs, religious, irreligious, or otherwise.

i disagree because she, like many in her party think religion and policy should MIX and that is the WORST kind of recipe for disaster. this woman is a disgrace...she's championing the move to TAKE AWAY OUR RIGHT TO CHOOSE!

Obama has talked extensively about his religious beliefs. In his belief system, abortion is not wrong. Yet no one is upset saying, "Obama is basing his policy on abortion on his religious beliefs." Let's just be consistent.

Obama doesnt want to see women lose one of their most basic rights. one that we only won just over 30 years ago. Do we REALLY want to go BACK to the age of women sticking coat hangers up themselves and back alley abortions where more women DIED? its not about "pro abortion" its about PRO CHOICE. Sarah Palin is obviously out of touch.

And I'm still surprised that none of the feminists on here are up in arms about Palin being told she should stay home with her family rather than serve in a public office. She has a husband. Why can't he stay home? Is it because that is the "woman's role"?

It has nothing to do with "roles"...at least not for ME (and I am a card carrying feminist) I dont support a woman who would see MY rights as a woman taken away. period. She's a power mad hypocrate anyway..which is one of the reasons why she's already under investigation in her own state.

 

[Archon]

I did disobey my parents, but to make it about that is simplistic. The truth is the idea that she would disobey her parents was, by the numbers, almost a certainty. But since she had no REAL sex-ed, no parent-led conversation in which a common sense was combined with the moral teachings, it was much more likely that she would become pregnant.

How could possibly know what type of sex-ed, parental conversations, or moral teaching this girl had?
I've tried to avoid discussing abortion because I realize that's a pretty hot topic around here, but since it keeps coming up...You all keep talking about a woman's choice. OK, what about the father's choice? What about the voice of the unborn child? These individuals get no say? An abortion affects more then the mother. Maybe you believe life doesn't actually being until birth. I disagree with that, but for the sake of the argument, I'll give you that. Obama has stated on television that he can't say for certain when life begins. I believe his actual quote was, "That's above my pay grade." It makes sense to me that if life could possibly begin before birth, that that life should be protected. Isn't all life valuable? I would prefer he to say life begins at birth and just be done with it. I want a leader with strong moral convictions. I don't have to agree with all of those convictions, but at least I know where he, or she, stands.
Some of you seem almost afraid of a candidate having religious beliefs. America was, of course, founded my men with strong moral (and in many cases) religious, convictions. Our religion, or morals, or beliefs, or whatever you want to call thhem, should absolutely not be seperated form our policy. Rather, those beliefs, morals, and convictions should inform our policy. Otherwise, our candidate if a hypocrite, one who believes (or at least talks)one way and acts another.

If he is like many Christians, especially African-Americans, abortion is wrong FOR HIM. He simply does not favor criminalizing it for the women and doctors who share in such a difficult choice. In this case, it is likely that he is able to separate moral choices from legislation.

That's actually a pretty good example of hypocrisy.

 

[Karma]

*hits buzzer to indicate INCORRECT ANSWER* sorry...but this country was NOT founded by "men with strong moral beliefs" this country was founded by men who came here because they wanted to be free to be the PERVERTS that they actually WERE out in the open without the scrutiny and persecution of the british empire from which they came from. America was founded by people who wanted freedom to do what they wanted to do...NOT solely because of religious persecution..that is what MOST people either fail to remember or totally ignore when they talk about "the founding fathers" who were HARDLY the images of "strong moral posture" that people think they were.

there is NO concrete proof that the "founding fathers" were "CHRISTIANS" and many of them engaged in rampant drinking/drug use and deviant sexual behavior (it pays to have minored in History during college )

and as a woman who IS pro choice...i am infuriated by the fact that MEN think they have "as much say" as a woman over what happens to HER body. No OUTSIDE FORCE should dictate to a woman what she can/can't do with her body. if it were MEN in this position...i doubt we'd even be having this conversation because men get to "hit it and quit it" with little reprocussion ANYWAY as it is in this patriarchal society while women are damned if we do and damned if we dont.

as for the "unborn child?" we're not talking about partial birth aboritions...there IS a clear amount of time when a woman can responsibly terminate a pregnancy.

 

[Rampage]

How could possibly know what type of sex-ed, parental conversations, or moral teaching this girl had?

I know because that is the policy she has espoused. Either that or she is completely full of it because she failed to practice what she preaches. Let' s not play games here. This is big boy school...

You all keep talking about a woman's choice. OK, what about the father's choice? What about the voice of the unborn child? These individuals get no say?

Not enough say that I favor putting pregnant women or doctors in jail.

Maybe you believe life doesn't actually being until birth. I disagree with that, but for the sake of the argument, I'll give you that.

No one here believes that. But it is pretty set that SEPARATE life does not begin in the first trimester. Until then at the EARLIEST, the baby is biologically a parasite, unable to survive separate from its host (there's the Biology degree kicking in). So at least until then, I believe the fetus is there at the consent of the mother ONLY. When guys start having the kids, THEY can have the say. After that, I still think that the life of the mother is paramount and any risk is hers to decide to bear, or not to bear.

As for a leaders religious views? I would prefer them in the background. We have enough countries with religious view dominating government. Iran, Saudi Arabia, Afghanistan...the list goes on and on, and the record is NOT good.

That's actually a pretty good example of hypocrisy.

That is actually an example of a person with balance. I believe in corporal punishment from parents to kids. But I would not mandate it for every family. That is not my right. People have free will and control of their own bodies. That is what God intended, even if we don't do what he might like.

 

[Archon]

People have free will and control of their own bodies. That is what God intended, even if we don't do what he might like.

Actually that's incorrect.

1 Corinthians 6:19 Do you not know that your body is a temple of the Holy Spirit, who is in you, whom you have received from God? You are not your own; 20 you were bought at a price. Therefore honor God with your body.

This verse only applies to followers of Christ, but it's the first one I could think of. But the point is, for those closest to God, they are absolutely not free to do whatever they wish with their bodies.

I know because that is the policy she has espoused. Either that or she is completely full of it because she failed to practice what she preaches. Let' s not play games here. This is big boy school...

Let's make sure we're talking about the same thing here. I'm talking about Palin's daughter. I belive you're correct in suggesting that she had those talks and that teaching, but she chose to disregard them and to engage in behavior that was contrary to what she had been taught. I work with teenagers and I've seen my share who turn out poorly even though they had very good parents. In fact, I've seen families where one sibling turned out great while the other did not. Kids make choices all the time and it's not always the fault of the parents when they chose poorly. Seriously, what would suggest? Chaining her kid in the basement to make sure she never does anything wrong? Of course not.

That is actually an example of a person with balance. I believe in corporal punishment from parents to kids. But I would not mandate it for every family. That is not my right. People have free will and control of their own bodies. That is what God intended, even if we don't do what he might like.

And that's a good example of moral relatvism. There are absolutes. There are some things that are wrong and some things that are right.

there is NO concrete proof that the "founding fathers" were "CHRISTIANS" and many of them engaged in rampant drinking/drug use and deviant sexual behavior (it pays to have minored in History during college )

I'm not saying that they were Christian. I am saying they had beliefs, convictions, and morals that dictated their policy. A person cannot be seperated from their beliefs. What we say, isn't what we believe. What we do, is what we believe. As I said earlier, our beliefs (wherever they come from) inform our policy.
Rather than suggest that one's beliefs should be seperate from one's policies, it's more honest to say, "I don't believe a Christian can be a good President because I don't agree with what they stand for." There are faith systems I would say that about. There are other faith systems, most in fact, where men and women who hold genuinely to those systems would make fine Presidents.

 

[Rampage]

Actually that's incorrect.

How so? It is obvious that we have free will; if we did not then sin would not exist, because it is contrary to what God wants. The key to his gift of life to us is that we are allowed to do good or ill (and often a mixture of both) with it.

This verse only applies to followers of Christ, but it's the first one I could think of. But the point is, for those closest to God, they are absolutely not free to do whatever they wish with their bodies.

And while I agree that those who are close to God are not SUPPOSED to do anything with their bodies, they are indeed FREE to do so. The Holy Spirit, as their guide, leads them into the the right ways but it is STILL opposed by sin. And a follower of God, or anyone else, has the freedom to choose what they will. The beauty of serving God is that you could CHOOSE not to do so, but serve him of your own free will. God did not make automatons, nor did he desire them. If he had, he would have made it so.

Let's make sure we're talking about the same thing here. I'm talking about Palin's daughter. I belive you're correct in suggesting that she had those talks and that teaching, but she chose to disregard them and to engage in behavior that was contrary to what she had been taught. I work with teenagers and I've seen my share who turn out poorly even though they had very good parents. In fact, I've seen families where one sibling turned out great while the other did not. Kids make choices all the time and it's not always the fault of the parents when they chose poorly. Seriously, what would suggest? Chaining her kid in the basement to make sure she never does anything wrong? Of course not.

I work with kids as well, and the fallacy was not giving her daughter all of the information. That kid, once she decided to have sex, had no shot. But information about contraception (especially if she was so close to this guy) would have been more prudent. She did not need to chain her. Palin needed to make sure her daughter did not go forth without available information.

And that's a good example of moral relatvism. There are absolutes. There are some things that are wrong and some things that are right.

Moral Relativism is the phrase used when people want to beat others over the head with their own beliefs. Certainly there are certain moral absolutes (murder, rape, etc.), but sex ed? I think that there is wiggle room there. Abortion. WIGGLE. ROOM. That you disagree is your issue, not my relativism. Similarly, someone can believe something without it being the law of the land for everyone. That is not moral relativism, that is the give-and-take of a society. Everyone does not believe what you believe. Beyond some core beliefs, we have to find a way to respect each other.

Rather than suggest that one's beliefs should be seperate from one's policies, it's more honest to say, "I don't believe a Christian can be a good President because I don't agree with what they stand for." There are faith systems I would say that about. There are other faith systems, most in fact, where men and women who hold genuinely to those systems would make fine Presidents.

The honest thing for me is to say that I am nt a fan of a religious zealot of any type. They are at once judgemental, dogmatic, and fundamentally nearsighted when it comes to the running of a country. They believe in rights, as long as the rights are THEIRS. They believe in freedom, until it is a freedom to do something in which THEY do not believe. They believe in Democracy, but practice Theocracy. No thanks, and I am a Christian.

 

[Archon]

OK, we disagree on every point you made there, so I'll just make two quick comments and leave it at that.

I work with kids as well, and the fallacy was not giving her daughter all of the information. That kid, once she decided to have sex, had no shot. But information about contraception (especially if she was so close to this guy) would have been more prudent. She did not need to chain her. Palin needed to make sure her daughter did not go forth without available information.

I'm still unsure what point you're trying to make here. You cannot possibly know what Palin did or did not tell her daughter. You work with teens so you know that make dumb decisions all the time, even when they know better. For example, a kid gets an accident while driving drunk. You say, "Is it against the law for you to drink?" "Yes." "Is it against the law to drive while intoxicated?" "Yes." "So whay did you do it?" "I don't know." You've probably had a conversation like that.
There are more effective arguments to use against Palin than that her daughter made a mistake. Even Obama, Biden (whose daughter just got arrested for obstruction of justice if we're going that route), and Carville said this particular attack is pointless.
The only other comment I'm going to make is about our free will as it realtes to our bodies. Yes, we are free to do what we want. But as that verse clearly states, God's desire is for us to use our bodies to honor him because our bodies, in fact, belong to Him. God intends for us to obey Him.

 

[Rampage]

The point is clear. SHE. HAD. SEX. She was going to have sex. Palin, if she practices what she preaches as far as policy is concerned, did not tell her much past "keep 'em closed". THAT. WAS. STUPID. Would it have prevented the pregnancy.We wll never know, but the numbers are promising.

As for free will, I can't be any more clear. God does want us to obey him, but he does allow us to choose.

 

[Persephone]

Question:

This verse only applies to followers of Christ, but it's the first one I could think of. But the point is, for those closest to God, they are absolutely not free to do whatever they wish with their bodies.

So if you're not a follower of Christ, you're free to do whatever you wish to your body?

 

[Archon]

The point is clear. SHE. HAD. SEX. She was going to have sex. Palin, if she practices what she preaches as far as policy is concerned, did not tell her much past "keep 'em closed". THAT. WAS. STUPID. Would it have prevented the pregnancy.We wll never know, but the numbers are promising.

Rampage, seriously, how can you possibly know what Palin told her daughter? You can't. Palin may have given her the most thorough and comprehensive sex education that has ever been given in the history of the universe and her daughter still ignore what she HAD BEEN TAUGHT. This is a weak argument that no one on the democrat side is trying to score points with.
So we should also discuss Biden and how his daughter has very recently been arrested for obstruction of justice. Clearly Biden never taught his daughter that she had to obey laws. If he had, she wouldn't have broken the laws. He is quite obviously a hypocrite and should be disqualified from public service. I mean, he says he abides by the law, but because his daughter doesn't he must not really care about them.

So if you're not a follower of Christ, you're free to do whatever you wish to your body?

This answer will lead us from the political into the theological so if you want to follow this thought, we may want to open a new thread or at least a pm.
In one sense, you are quite correct. Throughout Scripture we see people who do not follow Christ doing all manner of things to and with their bodies. They would not be expected to do what is right. They are still judged for their actions (eventually if not immediately) because God's laws are absolute (see the story of Sodom and Gamorrah in Genesis 18-19 for a good example of this). Just as in today's laws, ignorance is no defense.
Those who follow Christ are commanded to honor God with their bodies and judged more harshly when they ignore those commands (see the story of King David in 2 Samuel 11ff for a good example of this). But here's the deal. These commands are for our benifit. In John 10:10 Jesus comments, "I have come that you might have life and have it in full abundance!" And again in John 8:36, "So if the Son sets you free, you will be free indeed!"
Following Christ is not at all about following a set of dos and don'ts. The Pharisees tried that and completely missed the point of grace. But that's another story altogether.
So I suppose the answer is, yes, you are free to do what you want, but you could have greater freedom still in Christ.

 

[Flashforward]

I think the basic consensus here is that Sarah Palin sucks. I couldn't agree more, especially with her recent racist attacks on Obama at her rallies. The damn things look more like Klan meetings than political events with McCain-Palin supporters shouting things like "Terrorist," "Off with his head," "Traitor," and "Kill him."

Observe with disgust:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U_q9d2PCxVM (McCain hears it and does nothing)

Actual McCain supporters:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=itEucdhf4Us

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=utXFkXwaG7A&eurl=

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KjxzmaXAg9E&eurl=

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VJghQMq49dw&eurl=

http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/years/2008/1008082voter1.html

CNN's Anderson Cooper, David Gergen, Paul Begala, and Ed Rollins on McCain's tactics:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YFDyalnTJbs&eurl=

Even true conservatives have turned on her because of her tactics:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yQRBZGVagcQ&eurl=