PDA

View Full Version : General Politics Palin was for the Bridge to Nowhere before she was against it


HolmeZz
08-30-2008, 12:14 PM
This is going to remain an issue. She got up there yesterday and blatantly lied.

Here's Palin in '06:

"5. Would you continue state funding for the proposed Knik Arm and Gravina Island bridges?

Yes. I would like to see Alaska’s infrastructure projects built sooner rather than later. The window is now - while our congressional delegation is in a strong position to assist."

http://clipmarks.com/clipmark/DC2DCFB1-25AF-4332-BA44-6ECAC7450DD2/

And here was her claiming yesterday that she never supported the bridge and that she has been some champion of reform in taking on earmarks and pork barrel spending:

<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/SnlG6m20L3A&hl=en&fs=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/SnlG6m20L3A&hl=en&fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>

irishjayhawk
08-30-2008, 12:17 PM
I would like ONE media person to ask her point blank how she is Pro-Life but Pro-Death Penalty.

But no one will.

banyon
08-30-2008, 12:20 PM
I would like ONE media person to ask her point blank how she is Pro-Life but Pro-Death Penalty.

But no one will.

You think that's an impossible question to answer?

Jenson71
08-30-2008, 12:21 PM
As I recall, the project was a national headline before she fought against it.

beer bacon
08-30-2008, 12:21 PM
They don't have time for questions like that with a slate full of Lindsay Graham talking about how being the governor of Alaska for 19 months means she has lots of foreign policy experience with Russia, and Washington Journal "reporters" talking about how Palin's close ties to the oil industry are just what we need to solve our energy problems. That type of insightful commentary takes up a lot of coverage.

HolmeZz
08-30-2008, 12:21 PM
As I recall, the project was a national headline before she fought against it.

That's when she changed her tune.

Jenson71
08-30-2008, 12:21 PM
I would like ONE media person to ask her point blank how she is Pro-Life but Pro-Death Penalty.

But no one will.

That's simple. It's been asked and answered a million times.

irishjayhawk
08-30-2008, 12:22 PM
You think that's an impossible question to answer?

Yes, just not impossible for her to come off in a good light with her base. Religious people will always rationalize.

I do. You cannot call yourself Pro-Life and be for Death. It's hypocrisy. And this would lead into several hypocritical stances she holds.

irishjayhawk
08-30-2008, 12:22 PM
That's simple. It's been asked and answered a million times.

Really? What's the answer?

Jenson71
08-30-2008, 12:23 PM
Really? What's the answer?

"How can you be for Life and be for the death penalty?"

"Because criminals choose to do the heinous crime. The little baby is innocent."

You've never heard this?

bango
08-30-2008, 12:24 PM
They don't have time for questions like that with a slate full of Lindsay Graham talking about how being the governor of Alaska for 19 months means she has lots of foreign policy experience with Russia, and Washington Journal "reporters" talking about how Palin's close ties to the oil industry are just what we need to solve our energy problems. That type of insightful commentary takes up a lot of coverage.

Would she not have to deal with Canada seeing as they border one another?

banyon
08-30-2008, 12:25 PM
Yes, just not impossible for her to come off in a good light with her base. Religious people will always rationalize.

I do. You cannot call yourself Pro-Life and be for Death. It's hypocrisy. And this would lead into several hypocritical stances she holds.

I don't think that the evangelicals you are referring to frame it that way. After all, they believe that the bible holds a Pro-Life and Pro-Death Penalty stance.

Even without relying on the Bible, though, a pretty easy rationalization is that people executed under the death penalty have forfeited their rights to be a part of society, where fetuses/babies/whatever have not forfeited any of those rights since they are born innocent.

It's not my position, but it's not untenable.

beer bacon
08-30-2008, 12:25 PM
"How can you be for Life and be for the death penalty?"

"Because criminals choose to do the heinous crime. The little baby is innocent."

You've never heard this?

Ahh, yes. I remember many Bible passages where Jesus said the exact same thing. Thank you fundamentalist Christians, for adhering to the literal truth of God's Bible.

irishjayhawk
08-30-2008, 12:25 PM
"How can you be for Life and be for the death penalty?"

"Because criminals choose to do the heinous crime. The little baby is innocent."

You've never heard this?

That is pure rationalization. Moreover, it's dishonest because it inherently assumes that all criminals are guilty. DNA seems to exonerate far more...

Again, religious people will rationalize anything and everything.

beer bacon
08-30-2008, 12:26 PM
Would she not have to deal with Canada seeing as they border one another?

Does it really matter if she had to deal with Canada?

irishjayhawk
08-30-2008, 12:27 PM
I don't think that the evangelicals you are referring to frame it that way. After all, they believe that the bible holds a Pro-Life and Pro-Death Penalty stance.

Even without relying on the Bible, though, a pretty easy rationalization is that people executed under the death penalty have forfeited their rights to be a part of society, where fetuses/babies/whatever have not forfeited any of those rights since they are born innocent.

It's not my position, but it's not untenable.

Again, it assumes that all criminals are guilty. DNA says otherwise most of the time.

I agree with you that it wouldn't really affect her with respect to average joe. But for those rational people in the world, it would at least shed some light on her.

There's way too many other hypocritical stances she's taken.

bango
08-30-2008, 12:30 PM
Does it really matter if she had to deal with Canada?

It would show that she does have some foreign policy experience.

Jenson71
08-30-2008, 12:31 PM
That is pure rationalization. Moreover, it's dishonest because it inherently assumes that all criminals are guilty. DNA seems to exonerate far more...

Again, religious people will rationalize anything and everything.

It's a logical stance. It's also similar to the Just War theory. Can a Christian kill someone? What about in self-defense? They are compelling arguments, and I can see both sides. Personally, I don't think we should kill people - but it's not really for ethical reasons.\

Anyway, that's the answer she would most likely give, like many others.

banyon
08-30-2008, 12:31 PM
Again, it assumes that all criminals are guilty. DNA says otherwise most of the time.

I agree with you that it wouldn't really affect her with respect to average joe. But for those rational people in the world, it would at least shed some light on her.

There's way too many other hypocritical stances she's taken.

Well not, most of the time, but enough of the time that it is troubling. That is why I am against the death penalty. If however, a capital crime occurs in my jurisdiction and the case warrants it, I will carry it out.

Basically you are saying that it is irrational to believe in the death penalty, which I don't agree. But if you grant that it is rational, then the justification offered by Jenson and myself would make that view and a pro-life view jointly tenable. It's just a view I disagree with for policy and other moral reasons.

irishjayhawk
08-30-2008, 12:33 PM
It's a logical stance. It's also similar to the Just War theory. Can a Christian kill someone? What about in self-defense? They are compelling arguments, and I can see both sides. Personally, I don't think we should kill people - but it's not really for ethical reasons.

ROFL

Just War Theory is a logical stance?

Either Jesus condemned killing or he did not. The Bible lists killing as a commandment.

Self defense is perhaps your only good argument. But then, what is self defense? Is it attacking a nation preemptively to defend a nation (self)?

wazu
08-30-2008, 12:34 PM
And here was her claiming yesterday that she never supported the bridge and that she has been some champion of reform in taking on earmarks and pork barrel spending:

She doesn't claim that anywhere in the video you linked...but don't let that stop you.

beer bacon
08-30-2008, 12:34 PM
I think it is irrational to advocate a completely literal interpretation of Jesus's teachings, and then continue to support murder under any circumstances.

irishjayhawk
08-30-2008, 12:35 PM
Well not, most of the time, but enough of the time that it is troubling. That is why I am against the death penalty. If however, a capital crime occurs in my jurisdiction and the case warrants it, I will carry it out.

Basically you are saying that it is irrational to believe in the death penalty, which I don't agree. But if you grant that it is rational, then the justification offered by Jenson and myself would make that view and a pro-life view jointly tenable. It's just a view I disagree with for policy and other moral reasons.

Not saying that at all. I'm saying it isn't tenable to have a Pro-Life stance and be for the death penalty.

Either you are Pro-Life (for life) or you are not.

Anything else is a rationalization for whatever it is you want to do.

banyon
08-30-2008, 12:38 PM
She doesn't claim that anywhere in the video you linked...but don't let that stop you.

She said that in her acceptance speech:

link with video (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/08/29/AR2008082901882.html)

I signed major ethics reform. And I appointed both Democrats and independents to serve in my administration. And I championed reform to end the abuses of earmark spending by Congress. In fact, I told Congress -- I told Congress, "Thanks, but no thanks," on that bridge to nowhere.

(APPLAUSE)

If our state wanted a bridge, I said we'd build it ourselves. Well, it's always, though, safer in politics to avoid risk, to just kind of go along with the status quo. But I didn't get into government to do the safe and easy things. A ship in harbor is safe, but that's not why the ship is built.

RINGLEADER
08-30-2008, 12:38 PM
Actually I think she struck down the Road To Nowhere that, if I'm not mistaken, Obama voted for.

That said, I doubt the election is going to turn on this point. LOL

banyon
08-30-2008, 12:39 PM
Not saying that at all. I'm saying it isn't tenable to have a Pro-Life stance and be for the death penalty.

Either you are Pro-Life (for life) or you are not.

Anything else is a rationalization for whatever it is you want to do.

Well now you are misusing and conflating terms here in precisely the same way the people who call "pro-choice" "pro-abortion" do. If you're trying to satrize that phenomenon, great, but otherwise you are playing on ambiguities in the terms now.

irishjayhawk
08-30-2008, 12:40 PM
Actually I think she struck down the Road To Nowhere that, if I'm not mistaken, Obama voted for.

That said, I doubt the election is going to turn on this point. LOL

Yep.

But if I was a senator, the first thing I would do is find a sure fire bill and earmark it with an earmark that says no more earmarks or pork.

irishjayhawk
08-30-2008, 12:41 PM
Well now you are misusing and conflating terms here in precisely the same way the people who call "pro-choice" "pro-abortion" do. If you're trying to satrize that phenomenon, great, but otherwise you are playing on ambiguities in the terms now.

How so?



(Yes, I am using their own PR against them.)

banyon
08-30-2008, 12:41 PM
Did Palin Really Fight The “Bridge To Nowhere”?

http://blogs.tnr.com/tnr/blogs/the_plank/archive/2008/08/29/did-palin-really-fight-the-bridge-to-nowhere.aspx

Republicans have been heavily touting Sarah Palin's reformist credentials, with her supposed opposition to Alaska's "Bridge to Nowhere" as Exhibit A. But how hard did she really fight the project? Not very, it seems. Here's what she told the Anchorage Daily News on October 22, 2006, during the race for the governor's seat (via Nexis):

5. Would you continue state funding for the proposed Knik Arm and Gravina Island bridges?

Yes. I would like to see Alaska's infrastructure projects built sooner rather than later. The window is now--while our congressional delegation is in a strong position to assist.

So she was very much for the bridge and insisted that Alaska had to act quickly—the party of Ted Stevens and Don Young might soon lose its majority, after all. By that point, the project was endangered for reasons that had nothing to do with Palin—the bridge had become a national laughingstock, Congress had stripped away the offending earmark, shifting the money back to the state's general fund, and future federal support seemed unlikely. True, after Palin was sworn into office that fall, her first budget didn't allocate any money for the bridge. But when the Daily News asked on December 16, 2006, if she now opposed the project, Palin demurred and said she was just trying to figure out where the bridge fit on the state's list of transportation priorities, given the lack of support from Congress. Finally, on September 19, 2007, she decided to redirect funds away from the project altogether with this sorry-sounding statement:

"Ketchikan desires a better way to reach the airport, but the $398 million bridge is not the answer," said Governor Palin. "Despite the work of our congressional delegation, we are about $329 million short of full funding for the bridge project, and it's clear that Congress has little interest in spending any more money on a bridge between Ketchikan and Gravina Island," Governor Palin added. "Much of the public's attitude toward Alaska bridges is based on inaccurate portrayals of the projects here. But we need to focus on what we can do, rather than fight over what has happened."

Maybe I've missed something, but it sure looks like she was fine with the bridge in principle, never had a problem with the earmarks, bristled at all the mockery, and only gave up on the project when it was clear that federal support wasn't forthcoming. Now, Charles Homans, who knows Alaska well, says Palin's anti-corruption instincts are fairly solid (she sold off the gubenatorial jet upon taking office, for one), and a casual Nexis search suggests that she's fiscally conservative (insofar as that term makes sense in a quasi-socialist state like Alaska), but this hardly looks like the "Mr. Smith Goes To Washington" moment everyone's making it out to be.

P.S. Here's a piece that Palin's special counsel, John Katz, wrote in March of this year for the Juneau Empire, assuring the Alaskan public that Palin was still very much in favor of earmarks, but sadly needed to scale back her requests somewhat (to "only" 31 earmarks this year—down from 54 last year) in response to "unwanted attention" from Congress and the press.

--Bradford Plumer

Related: TNR on Sarah Palin

Guru
08-30-2008, 12:42 PM
Not saying that at all. I'm saying it isn't tenable to have a Pro-Life stance and be for the death penalty.

Either you are Pro-Life (for life) or you are not.

Anything else is a rationalization for whatever it is you want to do.
It is a tough to be certain. I am always slightly torn on the death penalty and tend to lean to both sides of that issue. I think, if we didn't tie up the prisons with so many of the lesser crimes I would probably then be against it. Its crass but I am sick of killers getting second chances and lesser crimes being fought tooth and nail.

Willie Akins. I know, he is not dealing with the death penalty, but is an example of the prison problem.

Jenson71
08-30-2008, 12:42 PM
ROFL

Just War Theory is a logical stance?

Either Jesus condemned killing or he did not. The Bible lists killing as a commandment.

Self defense is perhaps your only good argument. But then, what is self defense? Is it attacking a nation preemptively to defend a nation (self)?

Yeah, it's logical. What is self-defense is something that Just War theorists will argue over. Attacking a nation preemptively to defend itself would probably be struck down. There are certain requirements for just reason to go for war, and I think preemptive strike is ruled out.

HolmeZz
08-30-2008, 12:43 PM
She doesn't claim that anywhere in the video you linked...but don't let that stop you.

:spock:

"And I championed reform to end the abuses of earmark spending by Congress. In fact, I told Congress -- I told Congress, "Thanks, but no thanks," on that bridge to nowhere."

<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/SnlG6m20L3A&hl=en&fs=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/SnlG6m20L3A&hl=en&fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>

Denial ain't just a river in Egypt.

wazu
08-30-2008, 12:45 PM
She said that in her acceptance speech:

link with video (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/08/29/AR2008082901882.html)

I signed major ethics reform. And I appointed both Democrats and independents to serve in my administration. And I championed reform to end the abuses of earmark spending by Congress. In fact, I told Congress -- I told Congress, "Thanks, but no thanks," on that bridge to nowhere.

(APPLAUSE)

If our state wanted a bridge, I said we'd build it ourselves. Well, it's always, though, safer in politics to avoid risk, to just kind of go along with the status quo. But I didn't get into government to do the safe and easy things. A ship in harbor is safe, but that's not why the ship is built.

Nowhere in that does she claim that she NEVER supported a bridge to Gravina Island, as is claimed in the OP. She ultimately made the right choice and showed up the GOP establishment in Alaska big-time when she did it.

By the way - How did Obama vote regarding the Bridge to Nowhere?

irishjayhawk
08-30-2008, 12:45 PM
Yeah, it's logical. What is self-defense is something that Just War theorists will argue over. Attacking a nation preemptively to defend itself would probably be struck down. There are certain requirements for just reason to go for war, and I think preemptive strike is ruled out.

So, really, you aren't about the Bible then?

HolmeZz
08-30-2008, 12:49 PM
Nowhere in that does she claim that she NEVER supported a bridge to Gravina Island, as is claimed in the OP. She ultimately made the right choice and showed up the GOP establishment in Alaska big-time when she did it.

Swiiiiiiiiiiiiiing and a miss.

"Palin initially expressed support for the Gravina Island Bridge project,[49] commonly known outside the state as the "Bridge to Nowhere." However, once it had become a nationwide symbol of wasteful earmark spending and some federal funding was lost, Palin cancelled the bridge because Alaska's congressional delegation was unable to prevent the state of Alaska from having to pay for part of the bridge's construction.[24][50] Alaska still kept the federal money, but she stated that Alaska should rely less on federal funding.[50][25]"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sarah_Palin#Budget

By the way - How did Obama vote regarding the Bridge to Nowhere?

He supported it, just like your girl.

Jenson71
08-30-2008, 12:50 PM
So, really, you aren't about the Bible then?

LOL, kind of a ambiguous question. I don't know - you mean like the story of Joshua, the warrior leader of the Israelites?

Chieficus
08-30-2008, 12:54 PM
Not saying that at all. I'm saying it isn't tenable to have a Pro-Life stance and be for the death penalty.

Either you are Pro-Life (for life) or you are not.

Anything else is a rationalization for whatever it is you want to do.

Your argument comes to absurdity because you take a term and give it a definition that it does not contain.

A pro-life stance is essentially defined as being against any sort of killing unless there is a justifiable reason.

Hence, to murder someone is wrong, but to take a life because the person is threatening your life (self-defense) is justifiable. The general pro-life position can support the death penalty as a justifiable punishment (punishment fits the crime) carried out by the government. Likewise, defensive military options that may result in deaths are also justifiable in the right circumstances. However, it does not see the ending of a life in the womb for the reason of "choice" as justifiable.

wazu
08-30-2008, 12:54 PM
Swiiiiiiiiiiiiiing and a miss.

"Palin initially expressed support for the Gravina Island Bridge project,[49] commonly known outside the state as the "Bridge to Nowhere." However, once it had become a nationwide symbol of wasteful earmark spending and some federal funding was lost, Palin cancelled the bridge because Alaska's congressional delegation was unable to prevent the state of Alaska from having to pay for part of the bridge's construction.[24][50] Alaska still kept the federal money, but she stated that Alaska should rely less on federal funding.[50][25]"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sarah_Palin#Budget

Swing and miss? WTF are you talking about? Although I will admit I didn't realize the feds actually let them keep the money. That's just stupid!

He supported it, just like your girl.

Oh yeah, I guess he did.

Also, Obama and 81 other senators opposed an amendment in 2005 to strike the infamous $231 million “Bridge to Nowhere” earmark for Alaska and redirect that funding to help with rebuilding New Orleans.

http://thehill.com/leading-the-news/gop-scours-obama-votes-for-election-ammunition-2008-01-08.html

beer bacon
08-30-2008, 12:54 PM
Jesus Christ was all about justifiable murder. Remember when he invoked the Israelites to make the streets of Jerusalem run red with the blood of the Romans?

banyon
08-30-2008, 01:00 PM
Nowhere in that does she claim that she NEVER supported a bridge to Gravina Island, as is claimed in the OP. She ultimately made the right choice and showed up the GOP establishment in Alaska big-time when she did it.

By the way - How did Obama vote regarding the Bridge to Nowhere?

Actually the OP claims she was for it before she was against it, which is pretty much the same thing as "ultimately coming to the right conclusion". But that didn't help John Kerry much either.

wazu
08-30-2008, 01:06 PM
Actually the OP claims she was for it before she was against it, which is pretty much the same thing as "ultimately coming to the right conclusion". But that didn't help John Kerry much either.

John Kerry didn't just change his mind. He voted on both sides of the issue. And his political "gotcha" wasn't even that. Hell, Hillary did that too. His "gotcha" was his own quote "I was for it before I was against it".

As far as me misrepresenting the OP...

And here was her claiming yesterday that she never supported the bridge and that she has been some champion of reform in taking on earmarks and pork barrel spending

banyon
08-30-2008, 01:12 PM
John Kerry didn't just change his mind. He voted on both sides of the issue. And his political "gotcha" wasn't even that. Hell, Hillary did that too. His "gotcha" was his own quote "I was for it before I was against it".

It just shows what an indecisive leader she would be, regardless of her votes (not that I buy that type of reasoning, but it is the same game as was played in 04).

As far as me misrepresenting the OP...

I will admit your earlier criticism of HolmezZ's post came across too subtly for me. I thought you were saying nothing similar was in the video at all. But if you want to hang your hat on the "not having cast an official vote" distinction, that's fine, but it's precisely the kind of technical explanation Democrats tried to offer for Kerry's remark that was rejected out of hand by those on the right because it didn't fit into a 3-6 word soundbyte.

whoman69
08-30-2008, 04:16 PM
Its one thing to claim to be against wasteful spending on a project that you cancelled but still kept the money for.

SBK
08-30-2008, 04:24 PM
"How can you be for Life and be for the death penalty?"

"Because criminals choose to do the heinous crime. The little baby is innocent."

You've never heard this?

Or turn it around. How can you be for killing innocent babies but against killing murderers?

SBK
08-30-2008, 04:25 PM
Jesus Christ was all about justifiable murder. Remember when he invoked the Israelites to make the streets of Jerusalem run red with the blood of the Romans?

Perhaps you'd like to enlighten us with that portion of scripture?

HonestChieffan
08-30-2008, 05:48 PM
I would like ONE media person to ask her point blank how she is Pro-Life but Pro-Death Penalty.

But no one will.

Is that hard to understand?

BigMeatballDave
08-30-2008, 06:24 PM
I would like ONE media person to ask her point blank how she is Pro-Life but Pro-Death Penalty.

But no one will.Are you ****ing kidding me? I am Pro-life and Pro-death penalty. What don't you get about it?

banyon
08-30-2008, 06:25 PM
Guys, we already did this earlier in the thread.

wazu
08-30-2008, 06:26 PM
Are you ****ing kidding me? I am Pro-life and Pro-death penalty. What don't you get about it?

Oh holy hell, take it to a new thread.

J Diddy
08-30-2008, 06:26 PM
Oh holy hell, take it to a new thread.

I'm kinda life and sorta death penalty, where should i go?

BigMeatballDave
08-30-2008, 06:27 PM
I do. You cannot call yourself Pro-Life and be for Death. It's hypocrisy. And this would lead into several hypocritical stances she holds.Its not hypocrisy AT ALL. WTF? The death penalty is for murder and treason.

wazu
08-30-2008, 06:29 PM
I'm kinda life and sorta death penalty, where should i go?

Purgatory.

BigMeatballDave
08-30-2008, 06:38 PM
Again, it assumes that all criminals are guilty. DNA says otherwise most of the time.

Thats not true at all. So, by that rationale, most inmates are innocent?

BigMeatballDave
08-30-2008, 06:40 PM
Guys, we already did this earlier in the thread.Sorry, I read posts oldest to newest.

go bowe
08-30-2008, 07:26 PM
Sorry, I read posts oldest to newest.me too... :thumb: :thumb: :thumb:

Ugly Duck
08-30-2008, 10:10 PM
Palin was for the Bridge to Nowhere before she was against it.

She got up there yesterday and blatantly lied.

Maybe I was wrong.... maybe she is ready to be President!

BigMeatballDave
08-30-2008, 10:41 PM
This is going to remain an issue. She got up there yesterday and blatantly lied.

OMG! If that is the case, its the 1st time a Politician has been less than truthful. EVAR!!1! :rolleyes:

Logical
08-30-2008, 11:46 PM
I don't think that the evangelicals you are referring to frame it that way. After all, they believe that the bible holds a Pro-Life and Pro-Death Penalty stance.

Even without relying on the Bible, though, a pretty easy rationalization is that people executed under the death penalty have forfeited their rights to be a part of society, where fetuses/babies/whatever have not forfeited any of those rights since they are born innocent.

It's not my position, but it's not untenable.

Serious question where in the bible is abortion prohibited?

Logical
08-30-2008, 11:49 PM
Is that hard to understand?Honestly, I seem to recall a certain minister actually asking if evil exists in the world. If that can be asked why can't his question be asked.

ClevelandBronco
08-31-2008, 12:15 AM
I would like ONE media person to ask her point blank how she is Pro-Life but Pro-Death Penalty.

But no one will.

Hell, I was talking with two Democrat friends today who hold the same positions. It's not my position, but it not uncommon.

irishjayhawk
08-31-2008, 01:25 AM
Hell, I was talking with two Democrat friends today who hold the same positions. It's not my position, but it not uncommon.

I have no doubt that it's held by a lot of people, but it is, inherently, hypocritical.

Either you are Pro-Life or you aren't. Pro-Life means you are FOR LIFE. As far as I can tell, if a clump of cells is a LIFE a human in prison is a LIFE.


(I'm taking Pro-Life PR and turning it around on them, FTR.)

ClevelandBronco
08-31-2008, 02:06 AM
I have no doubt that it's held by a lot of people, but it is, inherently, hypocritical.

Either you are Pro-Life or you aren't. Pro-Life means you are FOR LIFE. As far as I can tell, if a clump of cells is a LIFE a human in prison is a LIFE.


(I'm taking Pro-Life PR and turning it around on them, FTR.)

Sorry, I can't give you much of a discussion. I don't support killing fetuses or convicts.

tiptap
08-31-2008, 07:32 AM
As a election argument I would hammer Palin on the tone of supposedly getting tough on earmarks. The inconsistency in her reasoning belies the argument. But personally, I am FINE with earmarks. They should only be given in a open forum manner. And if they don't stand the light of examination then they get booted as a priority. That is democracy.

tiptap
08-31-2008, 07:35 AM
Sorry, I can't give you much of a discussion. I don't support killing fetuses or convicts.

Just want to know what is your position on birth control, use of condoms and such? The Catholic Church position being what it is, I would like to know if this extends for a more protestant fundamentalist argument.

BucEyedPea
08-31-2008, 08:21 AM
Ahh, yes. I remember many Bible passages where Jesus said the exact same thing. Thank you fundamentalist Christians, for adhering to the literal truth of God's Bible.

Doesn't necessarily have to do with fundamentalist Christianity.
The Constitution clearly protects life, and other rights, but all of those rights can be taken away with due process if someone has taken another life.

There is no conflict or illogic because they are not the same category of thing. But if you insist there still is a conflict, illogic or hypocrisy it applies both ways. Against the death penalty because it's killing and then being for killing....because you can't see it behind someone's skin. Either way, it applies to your argument too. The two valued logic form of reasoning is just not workable.

BucEyedPea
08-31-2008, 08:23 AM
As a election argument I would hammer Palin on the tone of supposedly getting tough on earmarks. The inconsistency in her reasoning belies the argument. But personally, I am FINE with earmarks. They should only be given in a open forum manner. And if they don't stand the light of examination then they get booted as a priority. That is democracy.

It is?

Can be part of a republic too.

BucEyedPea
08-31-2008, 08:27 AM
Sounds to me, Holmz, that she changed her mind. Maybe someone persuasded her on this. There's nothing wrong with that in this case. In fact I think it's laudable because she didn't do it while running for office but while in office. She either listens or thought about it after hearing other arguments. If something doesn't make sense, there's often more information and facts flushing out the story.

HolmeZz
08-31-2008, 11:40 AM
Sounds to me, Holmz, that she changed her mind. Maybe someone persuasded her on this. There's nothing wrong with that in this case. In fact I think it's laudable because she didn't do it while running for office but while in office. She either listens or thought about it after hearing other arguments. If something doesn't make sense, there's often more information and facts flushing out the story.

I have no problem with her seeing the error of her ways and correcting a mistake. My issue was with the portrayal of her background on things like this. She brought up the Bridge to Nowhere as a means of legitimizing her judgment, when you could really argue it tells the opposite.

irishjayhawk
08-31-2008, 01:05 PM
Sorry, I can't give you much of a discussion. I don't support killing fetuses or convicts.

That's good to hear. Neither do I.

What I am for is a choice. If the crime is heinous enough and a jury feels justified in it, go ahead. Who am I to tell them what to do because of how I feel? Likewise, if a person has no qualms having an abortion (especially within the first trimester), who am I to legislate my morality on them?

dirk digler
09-03-2008, 08:33 AM
heh


http://www.politico.com/blogs/bensmith/
Bridge to somewhere

http://www.andrewhalcro.com/files/FH000020.jpg
The Alaska blogger and former Palin rival Andrew Halcro (http://www.andrewhalcro.com/the_bridge_to_somewhere) turns up a 2006 photo that (further) undermines the notion that Palin initially opposed the "bridge to nowhere."

InChiefsHell
09-03-2008, 09:31 AM
I must admit I'm a bit confused...she says she told Congress (as in the Federal Government congress) no thanks on the bridge to nowhere. But then there's this:

5. Would you continue state funding for the proposed Knik Arm and Gravina Island bridges?

Yes. I would like to see Alaska’s infrastructure projects built sooner rather than later. The window is now - while our congressional delegation is in a strong position to assist."

This seems to be talking about STATE funding...as in Alaska funding...or am I not reading this right? And, what is meant by the last line about the congressional delegation being in a strong position to assist...

...I think this is another situation where you have to read the whole thing in context. Regardless, I hope she gets asked about this and answers it well...hell, she can't to any worse that Barack's answer about the terrorist "neighbor" that he has...

***SPRAYER
09-03-2008, 09:31 AM
I heard her daughter is pregnant.

InChiefsHell
09-03-2008, 09:33 AM
OMG! If that is the case, its the 1st time a Politician has been less than truthful. EVAR!!1! :rolleyes:

Not to mention, do they really think that people won't LOOK INTO this stuff?? So either Palin and McCain are friggin' stupid, or they know that there is nothing to this at all...

...I'm not sure which it is yet...

***SPRAYER
09-03-2008, 09:34 AM
Daily Kos is reporting the Palin's pet cat is pregnant. I don't know if it's true or not.

dirk digler
09-03-2008, 09:37 AM
I must admit I'm a bit confused...she says she told Congress (as in the Federal Government congress) no thanks on the bridge to nowhere. But then there's this:



This seems to be talking about STATE funding...as in Alaska funding...or am I not reading this right? And, what is meant by the last line about the congressional delegation being in a strong position to assist...

...I think this is another situation where you have to read the whole thing in context. Regardless, I hope she gets asked about this and answers it well...hell, she can't to any worse that Barack's answer about the terrorist "neighbor" that he has...

She was for it until the media and Congress starting calling attention to it, after the furor died down she was for it again and there is quotes from last year saying she wanted the bridge built.

Also it is not like she sent the money back, she used the money for other things.

***SPRAYER
09-03-2008, 09:39 AM
I bet the dog is pregnant, too.

DaneMcCloud
09-03-2008, 12:10 PM
I bet the dog is pregnant, too.

I'm sure you have plenty of experience in that arena, Shiteater

banyon
09-15-2008, 08:00 PM
How did I miss this?

Palin wore a t-shirt in her support for the bridge to nowhere?

http://images.dailykos.com/images/user/30549/t_shirt.jpg


And this was her terrible explanation to Charlie Gibson.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kvqH6GnE3k0&feature=related

<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/kvqH6GnE3k0&hl=en&fs=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/kvqH6GnE3k0&hl=en&fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>

ClevelandBronco
09-16-2008, 12:07 AM
Just want to know what is your position on birth control, use of condoms and such? The Catholic Church position being what it is, I would like to know if this extends for a more protestant fundamentalist argument.

My fault. I didn't see your question until the thread was bumped.

I'm fine with contraception being discussed in public school health classes. In fact, I'd be surprised to hear a coherent argument against it.

patteeu
09-16-2008, 05:18 AM
I thought you Obama people were in the habit of turning a blind eye to flip flops.

penchief
09-16-2008, 07:19 AM
I thought you Obama people were in the habit of turning a blind eye to flip flops.

No, we just want them to be measured by the same scale.

BigChiefFan
09-16-2008, 08:07 AM
I guess McCain will be firing Palin because of his committment to get rid of earmarks, right?

patteeu
09-16-2008, 08:23 AM
I guess McCain will be firing Palin because of his committment to get rid of earmarks, right?

Why would he?

tiptap
09-16-2008, 08:52 AM
My fault. I didn't see your question until the thread was bumped.

I'm fine with contraception being discussed in public school health classes. In fact, I'd be surprised to hear a coherent argument against it.

This is an old discussion. So there could be consensus on reducing abortions by assuring everyone had access to contraception. And a reduction in sexually transmitted disease if the use of condoms could be promoted. I am quite comfortable with the pulpit preaching abstinence and such but at the same time understanding that many will not chose such a chase religious life.

InChiefsHell
09-16-2008, 09:39 AM
This is an old discussion. So there could be consensus on reducing abortions by assuring everyone had access to contraception. And a reduction in sexually transmitted disease if the use of condoms could be promoted. I am quite comfortable with the pulpit preaching abstinence and such but at the same time understanding that many will not chose such a chase religious life.

You have to have a discussion of all options, including abstinence, especially since it is the only fool-proof way to avoid diseases and pregnancy.

Amnorix
09-24-2008, 07:03 AM
I thought you Obama people were in the habit of turning a blind eye to flip flops.


So long as you agree that it's a flip flop, and so long as you acknowledge the ridiculous hypocrisy involved in excoriating the opponent's candidate for flip flopping, while ignoring it in your own house.

I personally rarely give a rat's ass about "flip flopping", as changing one's mind sometimes makes sense, and I'd rather have someone who is willing to face current realities than a stubborn fool jackass that sticks to a plan regardless of changes in circumstances (which is one of my many complaints about BushCo).

patteeu
09-24-2008, 07:08 AM
So long as you agree that it's a flip flop, and so long as you acknowledge the ridiculous hypocrisy involved in excoriating the opponent's candidate for flip flopping, while ignoring it in your own house.

I personally rarely give a rat's ass about "flip flopping", as changing one's mind sometimes makes sense, and I'd rather have someone who is willing to face current realities than a stubborn fool jackass that sticks to a plan regardless of changes in circumstances (which is one of my many complaints about BushCo).

Not all flip flops are created equally. I think we can agree on that much.