media lying about Sarah Palin to discredit her

[BlaqueKatt]

read here (http://www.nypost.com/seven/09092008/postopinion/opedcolumnists/how_obama_blew_it_128132.htm)-NY post article

" Since they didn't know anything about her, they started making things up. Anything that fit the caricature of a right-wing hypocrite was thrown up with, seemingly, no fact-checking.

They said she opposes contraception, when she said in a campaign debate that she is pro-contraception. They said she cut funding for pregnant teens, when she provided a massive funding hike.(these were both mentioned in the sarah palin is bad news thread)

They accused her of cutting funding for mentally disabled children, when she raised it 175 percent over the former administration. She was said to have been a member of the wacky Alaska Independence Party; The New York Times had to run a retraction. "(as was this)

[Amethyst Hunter]

I don't buy it. Reads like an opinion piece to me.

For once the media is doing their job: they're exposing this woman for the hypocritical dominionist extremist she is. Palin DOES oppose contraception despite any claims to the contrary (no doubt she's only spouting it to get support); denying women access to birth control is part of the dominionist core. Why do you think the hardcore "Religious Right" is now so excited about her, whereas before they were lukewarm on McCain because he wasn't "uber-conservative" enough for them? They know that they stand a good chance of stacking the Supreme Court in their favor and implementing more extremist agendas. (Frankly, I don't know anybody who honestly expects McCain to last out a whole term if God forbid he were elected, let alone two, and I strongly suspect that this is why Palin was chosen - and I wouldn't expect HER to last out any term she wandered into either, because of the very anti-woman hatred dominionists have!)

Here's some more interesting links, including investigations of Wasilla Bible Church (both it and its parent are Focus on the Family fronts in all but name), and here's Palin apparently using at least $25,000 of Alaskan taxpayer money to fund a project for dominionist-friendly churches, and possibly most frightening of all, the Joel's Army connections with "Master's Commission" related to her. (Joel's Army, incidentally, is like the hardest of the hardcore dommies - these are the guys that preach literal blood-and-guts-let's-go-kill-our-enemies about anyone and everyone they hate. Very, very scary people.)

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2008/9/4/12289/69937/415/586412

http://community.livejournal.com/dark_christian/1076925.html

http://www.talk2action.org/story/2008/9/2/155915/9993

[AFPheonix]

I'm waiting for the Mccain campaign to address the fact that she's pretty much bald-faced lying about her statements about the Bridge to Nowhere. She may say that she told Congress "Thanks, but no thanks", but the reality is that she supported it until it was obvious that it was not advantageous to do so anymore, and she was still happy to take the money that would have been used on the project and spent elsewhere in the state.

Sorry, but she's a political opportunist and a back-stabber. I trust her about as far as I can throw her.

[Greenday]

That article left me the impression that they are not neutral on the issue. In fact, it seemed like the author is extremely biased and can't keep it out of their writing.

[Amethyst Hunter]

http://www.talk2action.org/story/2008/9/9/9040/56216 - Written by noted researcher Chip Berlet (one of *the* experts on Christian Reconstructionism/Dominionism), this article explains the basics of the End Times crowd to us laypeople, and asks us if we should consider (and IMO, we SHOULD) as to whether Palin may be influenced by neopente dominionist end-time theology.

http://www.splcenter.org/intel/intelreport/article.jsp?aid=964 - Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC) keeps tabs on hate groups in the US, and Joel's Army is definitely on their watchlist. Given that Palin is heavily linked with this hardcore diehard (emphasis on the "die!" - these are truly some frightening people) militant bunch, it's well worth bringing this stuff to light. (Two words: Red Button. Do you REALLY want someone who's into the whole "O NOEZ WERE IN TEH END TIMES!!" gig just a finger-press away from that? Hell no, is my final answer, Regis!)

[Boozy]

Reads like an opinion piece to me.

It is. It is not a news article, which means whatever standards the NY Post has for reporters are not adhered to in this piece.

Columnists are free to make all sorts of claims without backing them up. I am not overly familiar with Palin or statements she's made, so I don't know if the claims made are true or false. But there's no way reading an opinion piece will enlighten me. The columnist attributes a lot to Obama and his campaign without any actual quotations to back up her statements. I'll bet there is quite a bit of suspicious paraphrasing involved.

Surely there is a better source for information on Palin than this (although I'll admit that I'm not inclined to hunt one down myself.)

[SuperB]

Daily Kos is not somewhere you want to check for "facts". They've deleted quite a few false claims lately.

She is pro-contraception:
"I'm pro-contraception, and I think kids who may not hear about it at home should hear about it in other avenues," she said during a debate in Juneau. (http://www.latimes.com/news/politics/la-na-sexed6-2008sep06,0,3119305.story)

She's stated that she supports both teachings and I agree with that stance as well. Abstinence only really is the only way to avoid pregnancy and STD's. That's fact whether or not someone can keep their legs closed. That should be taught along side of the proper use of contraception's. My kids are still young but I've even had both discussion with them. I've also had the 'personal responsibility' discussion with them on the fact that if they don't want even the remotest chance of dealing with an unwanted pregnancy they'd best re-consider whether sex is worth that possibility at a young age.

And regarding the link to the nutjobs, where is the proof that Palin is "heavily linked" to that group? That a church she left may or may not have members linked to them? Keeping in mind she left the Assembly of God because, according to a quote, they got "too weird(strange/something of the sort)" for her.

See this is the issue I have with the media. They grasp the fact that she attended a Pentacostal church, find a link to a weird group and then claim concrete evidence that she personally has heavy ties to it.

Prove the ties. Show proof that she personally attends those nutcase meetings. Show that she's donated. The only info I've been able to find stem from Daily Kos and personal blogs. (and Daily Kos has proven they have no problem starting lies)

Or can we assume that Jeremiah Wrights "God DAMN America" is Obama's personal slogan?

[BlaqueKatt]

I'm waiting for the Mccain campaign to address the fact that she's pretty much bald-faced lying about her statements about the Bridge to Nowhere.


I'm waiting for Obama to address the fact that HE Bald Faced Lied to MSNBC, and the voting public.--I guess we'll both be waiting

Video link here (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DhL8aeIsTEo&feature=related)

You don't think the media is biased towards Obama-He lied and they call it a "misstatement"

I listen to NPR all day at work-which is over 10 hours usually-I hear an Obama ad at least twice an hour, however I have yet to hear a McCain ad-I smell some major bias there.

Frankly, I don't know anybody who honestly expects McCain to last out a whole term if God forbid he were elected, let alone two,

He's three years older than Regan who lasted two terms and died at age 93-after surviving skin cancer, colon cancer, and an assassination attempt. How is that far fetched? Average lifespan in the united states is 78.1 years per stats from 2006 (http://www.chinapost.com.tw/health/other/2008/06/13/160822/Average-U.S..htm)

and George Bush Sr is currently 84

[SuperB]

I listen to NPR all day at work-which is over 10 hours usually-I hear an Obama ad at least twice an hour, however I have yet to hear a McCain ad-I smell some major bias there.

More than you know:
http://radioequalizer.blogspot.com/2008/09/liberals-try-to-sue-conservative-talk.html

Meanwhile CNN allowed Hillary Rosen to state that Gov. Palin reduced funding for programs for unwed mothers and special needs children. The fact is the funding was restructured and actually increased. Considerably increased.

[the_std]

Bias in the media is nothing new. Lying in politics is nothing new. One news source being liberally biased does not make Sarah Palin a worthwhile candidate, nor does it make her an unworthy one. And it doesn't mean that Barack Obama is worthy or unworthy either.

[AFPheonix]

I don't know about your NPR affiliate, but mine doesn't run ads :confused: How are you hearing political ads?

[CancelMyService]

The main thing I'm noticing is how the GOP is trying to frame any criticism of Palin into a "OMG YOU BASHED A WOMAN, YOU MUST APOLOGIZE NOW!" contest.

I mean, aren't Republicans the ones who are usually telling folks to get a thicker skin? It's been amusing seeing McCain's campaign staff acting like toddlers running to mommy because someone was mean.

Everything I've seen/heard about Palin so far indicates she is or was into a lot of extreme right wing activities and now she's trying to keep them far in the back of the closet now that she's the darling of the election cycle.

She also seems pretty ill-prepared for a job the size of Vice President. The town I live in is bigger than the town she ran, and I sure as hell wouldn't want my Mayor running for any federal office. As stated before, she was part of the money train everyone in Alaska seemed to have their fingers in, and now she's not only denying it but acting like any mention of it is an attack on her character.

Also anyone who only supports abstinence only sex education is just short sighted IMO. Yes, in a perfect world no one would have sex before marriage, but to expect hormone laden teens to sit on their hands until that magic day is pollyannish at best. Not giving kids any options other than "no sex at all" just leaves them unprepared for the time where chemistry wins out over religious instruction. The one reason where bringing up Bristol Palin seems appropriate would be as an example of how abstinence only policies just don't work. On a personal level, my mom is a former nurse and when it was time to give me The Talk, she said "try not to have sex until you're married, but if you do, be safe about it". Then I was taught about ways to be safe if that was the choice I decided to make. Guess what? I ended up having sex before marriage and I avoided both babies and STDs because I had that education.

[AFPheonix]

OK, finally got around to checking into the whole handgun ban. Here was one of the more typical pages I looked at: http://www.ontheissues.org/domestic/Barack_Obama_Gun_Control.htm

So according to that, Obama's campaign is saying that some staffers filled in the parts in question, although his handwriting is on other parts of the questionnaire, so to me it's still questionable about whether he out and out lied. I will say that he IS doing the politican shuffle around it.
But overall, he's got a mostly reasonable and well thought out, lawyerly view on gun ownership as far as I can tell. Yes, it's not what the NRA would like to hear, but it's not out and out anti-gun, just anti-gun where people are not using guns appropriately like in larger urban centers where they're used violently.

[Amethyst Hunter]

Daily Kos is not somewhere you want to check for "facts". They've deleted quite a few false claims lately.

Perhaps the website itself is suspect, but the person who wrote that article is most definitely NOT a hack. (She's written *extensively* on dominionism and its stealth hijacking of institutions like the Republican Party; other articles of hers are posted not only on Daily Kos but Talk2Action as well) She grew up in a dominionist household and spent about 25 years mired in this kind of crap, and her detailings of it are just too spot-on to be made up; you could probably contact her yourself and ask about it, if the site provides an email. (She did, in fact, suffer permanent chronic health issues in childhood as a result of her family belonging to one such extremist "church" that promotes "praying disease away because it's a sign of devil possession" and her family *refused* to take her to a legitimate doctor to treat the affliction.)

She is pro-contraception

No, she's not. Let's look at the statements in that link again:

In a widely quoted 2006 survey she answered during her gubernatorial campaign, Palin said she supported abstinence-until-marriage programs. But weeks later, she proclaimed herself "pro-contraception" and said condoms ought to be discussed in schools alongside abstinence.

Other conservatives who have backed Palin, including James Dobson of Focus on the Family, declined to weigh in.

Palin's statements date to her 2006 gubernatorial run. In July of that year, she completed a candidate questionnaire that asked, would she support funding for abstinence-until-marriage programs instead of "explicit sex-education programs, school-based clinics and the distribution of contraceptives in schools?"

Palin wrote, "Yes, the explicit sex-ed programs will not find my support."

But in August of that year, Palin was asked during a KTOO radio debate if "explicit" programs include those that discuss condoms. Palin said no and called discussions of condoms "relatively benign."

If you thought that John Kerry was a flippity-flopper, well, Palin makes him look like the Rock of Gibraltar.

Having Focus on The Family in your corner does you no credit either; Dobson is known to have promoted child abuse in at least one of his books on parenting (he details a horrific story of abusing the then-family dog by beating it with a belt to force the dog to obey as an example to his son) and is quite infamous for attacking what he claims is "The Homosexual Agenda."

Damning further still is the claim that Palin belongs to the anti-choice group Feminists For Life (which has wholeheartedly endorsed her), which has a VERY red-flag-worded statement on their FAQ page about contraception. Yes folks, FFL equates contraception with abortion, a very popular lie with the anti-choice crowd that has stepped up its attacks on birth control, not just abortion:

What is Feminists for Life's position on contraception?

Feminists for Life's mission is to address the unmet needs of women who are pregnant or parenting. Preconception issues including abstinence and contraception are outside of our mission. Some FFL members and supporters support the use of non-abortifacient contraception while others oppose contraception for a variety of reasons. FFL is concerned that certain forms of contraception have had adverse health effects on women.
Our membership enjoys a broad spectrum of opinion that reflects the diversity of opinions among the American public.

In the time of the early American feminists, sex between married couples was not always consensual. Many women bore 20 or more children, of whom only half survived. In order to affirm women’s rights within marriage, most feminist foremothers promoted “voluntary motherhood,” whereby women would have the education and right to fully participate in the decision to have sexual relations.

One would think that if they're so opposed to abortion, they'd support contraception which helps PREVENT unwanted pregnancies and therefore, abortion. Instead they blithely dismiss it, and then go on to call contraception (namely, the pill) "abortifacients" - which is what they believe the pill and IUDs to be. This reframing of language serves to confuse people and trick them into believing something is what it isn't. I've said it before and I'll say it again till I'm blue in the face: HORMONAL CONTRACEPTION - AKA THE PILL - DOES NOT CAUSE ABORTION AND THERE IS NO LEGITIMATE MEDICAL CLAIM STATING THIS.

Given that there is, as of right now, a bill being pressed into government that, unless killed in its tracks in less than 30 days, would effectively allow ALL medical personnel in this country to deny women (indeed, ANYone that the physician/provider doesn't like for whatever reason - so gay folks, pagan folks, etc., listen up) critical healthcare and services because of some supposed "religious conscience", and that there are pharmacists trying to get away with not doing their jobs because they don't like a particular medicine (note too, that this is *only* focusing on birth control; there are no reports of customers being denied diet pills, or Viagra, or other such) there is little if any reason to believe that FFL doesn't support such a horrible clause and that someone they are actively endorsing would not attempt to permit these kinds of sneaky backstabbings.

Note as well that wording about supposedly supporting education and sexual rights: "Within marriage." Now, whether or not you personally believe sex outside of marriage is or isn't a Big Sin, that's one thing. But to try to enforce this standard for all women is flat-out wrong, and it's telling of their bias towards sexually active women - if you're not Properly Married and Raising Babies, you're a slut and deserve whatever misery befalls you - whether or not you act responsibly in terms of using protections. So much for that old Christlike chestnut about treating people as you would want to be treated.

Abstinence only really is the only way to avoid pregnancy and STD's. That's fact whether or not someone can keep their legs closed.

Abstinence is indeed the only 100% effective way; however, your second statement looks pretty condescending and callous towards those females who never even had a choice in whether or not they became sexually active (aka rape victims). Palin is *on record* as stating that she opposes abortion rights for even rape victims. Frankly, whether or not you personally consider abortion a sin, or not, I have ZERO respect for anyone who thinks a rape victim should suffer a second indignity against her person by being forced to bear and/or raise the product of her violation against her will. (Yes, some women do this of their own will, but that's the key: it *must* be her choice and hers alone, without pressure or guilt-tripping or anything along those lines. And given the scare tactics and likely dominionist-recruiting schemes employed by PCCs (Pregnancy Crisis Centers) I would *not* be willing to trust that some kind of brainwashing is going on there should such a victim be unfortunate enough to find herself in such a place)

TBC...

[Amethyst Hunter]

Prove the ties. Show proof that she personally attends those nutcase meetings. Show that she's donated. The only info I've been able to find stem from Daily Kos and personal blogs. (and Daily Kos has proven they have no problem starting lies)

Or can we assume that Jeremiah Wrights "God DAMN America" is Obama's personal slogan?

Here's a whole bunch of links for your perusal:

http://slacktivist.typepad.com/slacktivist/2008/09/church-state.html#comments - The Slacktivist has been keeping tabs on some of Palin's money scandals; of note, Slacktivist is an *evangelical Christian* himself, so when *Christians* are sitting up and taking notice of the stench, that's pretty bad.

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=94332543 - An NPR interview with letter-writer Anne Kilkenny, who wrote in about Palin's eyeing possible book bannings in the past. Of note, Snopes has disproved the claim that there was a 'hit list' of particular books, but the links make clear that at some point Palin was at the very least asking about the potential to ban books (still a very bad sign) should she choose to, and then tried to backstab the people who said they would refuse to support her in this theoretical crusade.

http://www.snopes.com/politics/soapbox/sarahpalin.asp - The letter from Anne Kilkenny; an excerpt (Snopes also has verified that the letter is indeed real and from Anne Kilkenny):

While Sarah was Mayor of Wasilla she tried to fire our highly respected City Librarian because the Librarian refused to consider removing from the library some books that Sarah wanted removed. City residents rallied to the defense of the City Librarian and against Palin's attempt at out-and-out censorship, so Palin backed down and withdrew her termination letter. People who fought her attempt to oust the Librarian are on her enemies list to this day.

http://www.adn.com/sarah-palin/story/515512.html - The Alaskan Daily News take on the book controversy

http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/story?id=5766173&page=1 - ABC News investigates these claims as well... (and when the mainstream media, who normally doesn't promote all but the most insipid of news, starts taking notice of this kind of thing, something IS up)

http://www.salon.com/opinion/feature/2008/09/09/palin_fundamentalist/index.html - A VERY good article that points out disturbing similarities between Palin's ruthlessness and the kind of extremist hatred seen overseas. Also, the 2006 documentary "Jesus Camp" goes into chilling focus on the Joel's Army types and how they train recruits.

http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/09/08/palin.pastor/index.html - CNN gets in on the action, investigating Palin's church

http://www.cnn.com/video/#/video/politics/2008/09/09/intv.perkins.palin.cnn - More video from CNN

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8uz_nPFfjYo - A video that claims Palin's church supports an anti-Jewish group

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5K_1Eit0pxM - More video

http://www.believershome.com/html
/pentecostal__charismatic__thir.html - Church hijinks

http://www.letusreason.org/Latrain11.htm - Ditto

http://www.talk2action.org/story/2008/9/8/114332/7479 - More on Palin

http://www.alternet.org/rights/97939/weird_theology_in_wasilla%3A_a_look_inside_sarah_p alin%27s_pentecostal_church/?page=1 - Article on Wasilla Church and the not-so-kosher teachings it promotes

Now, with those out of the way, let's look at Obama's former pastor, the notorious Wright, for comparison, since you saw fit to throw that in there as bait.

The pundits of the right-wing media jumped on a particular quote, taken completely out of context (as they so love to do), to help us realize how “evil” both of them were (I've seen WAY more demonizing of Obama than I have of either McCain or Palin, including that bullshit "o noes he's a MUSLIM AND MUSLIM = TERRORIST!" meme). The churches in the community Obama spent time in as a serviceworker have as their central themes an aggressive stance against poverty, particularly as it applies to the people of that region, who overwhelmingly are black. Poverty spares no one, but non-whites arguably experience its effects on a very, very harsh level. Wright was NOT, as is popularly believed, condemning America per se but condemning the country's *failure to respond appropriately in dealing with the issues of poverty,* since higher poverty almost always brings with it a higher crime rate and higher rates of uneducated people unable to sufficiently employ themselves. (The Bible, interestingly, has God Himself cursing or judging those who abuse the weak and the poor in quite a few instances; *that* is what Wright intended when he said "God Damn America.")

Obama himself refuted these charges, and when he saw that people were so hung-up on the right-wing lies (a sad effect of our post-9/11 world in which EVERYONE is a suspect if you're not an obviously True-Blue-Blood Patriot**), he then decided to leave that church for the sake of his family and the other church patrons when the media kept trying to start fires where there were none. If that church was really as hardcore militant as it's been painted, one would think that there'd be a lot more Angry Black Militants roaming around out there and they'd get picked up by even the most local of news for their deeds.

Contrast Wright's sermons with those of the weapon-waving, militia-stockpiling camp-brainwashing Joel's Army and AoG clusters strongly related to Palin's church - "we must forcibly convert or kill all non-Christians (*including* people who may well BE Christian but who are *not* "Christian" enough by dominionist standards!), storm the world, claim everything for God, literal blood-and-guts Apocalypse and we'll make it happen if we have to!" - and Wright may be a loudmouth, but he's a loudmouth who poses no danger to anyone.

Even at best, Palin has proven to be a ruthless powermonger and I (a female, fyi) wouldn't trust her with a wet paper bag, much less the power to dictate law and wage very literal war, *especially* when there are very, very disturbing reports of dominionism infiltrating the US military and attempting to work its way up into dangerous power (need I say what power). I find it pretty *interesting* that the right wing had no problem with all but crucifying Hillary Clinton, yet now they're whining that Poor Little Palin is being unfairly attacked by the media supposedly "because she's a woman and a mom." (HC, may I point out, is also female and also a mother). I don't for one second buy the humble-pie act that's being put on there. Palin is getting the rightful scrutiny she deserves for her very clearly harsh policy views and what she would likely do if she were permitted access to higher powers.

And as for McCain, as someone else mentioned? Let's see. #1, questionable health history. Sure, he may look fine now, but who's to say something couldn't crop up somewhere down the road? #2 (and the more likely to occur), the dominionists backing him are *actively praying for his death in office* (read: a convenient "accident", or a "health condition" forces him to step down, if you know what I mean) so that they can crown Palin and consolidate their power gain.

These are, after all, the very same people who helped get Bush II into office both times and who laid on the pressure for his bunch to attack women's rights so vehemently these past 8 years. Furthermore, if God forbid McCain did get in, and Palin were to succeed him, I wouldn't expect *her* to last long in office either, simply because dominionists *cannot* abide having a woman, even one of their own, holding power over men who see themselves as literal soldiers for Christ and therefore with God's full authority, subject to none. She's only useful to them to a certain point, and once she's served her purpose they'll figure out a way to get rid of her, possibly by impeachment on trumped-up charges, or worse (if the most bloodthirsty of dominionists have no compunction about bringing on an entire armaggeddon, it's safe to say they have no second thoughts about other, certain alternatives as well).

So there you have it - no matter which way it's cut, Palin & Co. are Bad. News. and they need to be exposed ASAP lest this country's grave gets dug even deeper.




** = The type of 'patriot' that the right-wingers would prefer, that is. Patriotism means much more than just backing one's country; it means supporting that country when it is right and CORRECTING the wrongs its government commits - too often folks like to quote the one part of that saying and leave out the half that says "when wrong, to set right."

[Amethyst Hunter]

overall, he's [Obama] got a mostly reasonable and well thought out, lawyerly view on gun ownership as far as I can tell. Yes, it's not what the NRA would like to hear, but it's not out and out anti-gun, just anti-gun where people are not using guns appropriately like in larger urban centers where they're used violently.

This is a (bafflingly, IMO) major concern for my dad, who right now is leaning towards Obama but is for some reason worried that All The Guns In The World Are Doomed. (He shoots targets for sport and used to hunt bird-game in his younger days. Personally, I think some of his more rather...passionate...gun-nut friends are filling his head with all sorts of scare tales about mass bans or such - one guy he knows has a literal *armory* in his basement, complete with reinforced walls and survival meals.)

I told him today that 1) there are WAY more bigger issues at stake here than whether or not someone can buy an AK-47, and 2) ALL politicians trot out the anti-gun theme because they know it scores points with those who want to see a 'tougher' stance on crime. No politician, right or left, would seriously consider taking away all guns because it'd be the kiss of death for his career; there'd be a mass uprising even by peace activists in about .2 seconds if such a thing were ever to occur. (Like I told my dad, "If by some weird warping of reality they did try to come for your guns, you can just give them to 'em - barrel first." ;) ) I myself am all for the Second Amendment, and I don't buy the "all ur guns r belong 2 us" fear - like you said, it's more about inappropriate use.

As my mom (also for Obama) pointed out, the real problem is more with the black market than anything else. Clamp down on the criminal cartels, the influx of guns will inevitably slow. That, coupled with proper gun safety education and stopping the glorification of guns as Problem-Solvers (how many Hollywood movies have we seen where the Hero just picks up a gun and poses looking all cool and stuff after blowing somebody away - I don't think it's right to blame Hollywood exclusively for violence, but they also aren't helping to solve the problem, and that's where we as citizens come into play - we pay for their product, they put out more of the same because they're following our demand. Stop buying their stuff, they'll have to alter what they put out), will do a long way towards teaching people that guns are serious business to be treated with respect.

[AdminAssistant]

(how many Hollywood movies have we seen where the Hero just picks up a gun and poses looking all cool and stuff after blowing somebody away - I don't think it's right to blame Hollywood exclusively for violence, but they also aren't helping to solve the problem

It's not Hollywood's responsibility to solve the problem.

I'll start a separate thread on this so as to not threadjack, though.

[SuperB]

Abstinence is indeed the only 100% effective way; however, your second statement looks pretty condescending and callous towards those females who never even had a choice in whether or not they became sexually active (aka rape victims). Palin is *on record* as stating that she opposes abortion rights for even rape victims. Frankly, whether or not you personally consider abortion a sin, or not, I have ZERO respect for anyone who thinks a rape victim should suffer a second indignity against her person by being forced to bear and/or raise the product of her violation against her will. (Yes, some women do this of their own will, but that's the key: it *must* be her choice and hers alone, without pressure or guilt-tripping or anything along those lines. And given the scare tactics and likely dominionist-recruiting schemes employed by PCCs (Pregnancy Crisis Centers) I would *not* be willing to trust that some kind of brainwashing is going on there should such a victim be unfortunate enough to find herself in such a place)

TBC...

I still see no proof that Palin herself is involved in the group. She left that Church but people refuse to mention that fact.

As to the above, Palin said that for herself, she would choose life. That was the question. And she did not say she was anti-contraception. She said she was against sex-explicit education. Not against a discussion of contraception. There's a difference, I know, I'm involved in the school board. We have age appropriate sex ed which includes teaching abstinence.

Part of my point is that people are making huge assumptions based on little information. You for example, you make the assumption that I'm callous and condescending towards rape victims. But I've been there. I've had to consider that possibility if I ended up pregnant after an attack and I made the decision that if I were, I could not terminate a child. Luckily I wasn't. Even though I'm pro-life I only agree with abortion for rape/incest/life of the mother. The words "pro-life" doesn't cover it though. Where I stand against abortion is the way it's used for birth control. That's actually pretty much the norm for most pro-lifers. If two people have sex they should accept the risks.
Palin saying she would choose life was a personal decision, as was mine, but to listen to her detractors they make it appear as if she flat out stated she would take that choice from rape victims. She didn't.


Now, with those out of the way, let's look at Obama's former pastor, the notorious Wright, for comparison, since you saw fit to throw that in there as bait.

The only 'bait' intended was to point out the hypocrisy of those digging for anything they can use against Palin. A church she left does not link her to a group that shouldn't exist any more than Jeremiah Wright speaks for Obama. I'm sorry I didn't make that point more clear. I disagreed with everyone who tried to discredit Obama based on Wrights own words. Palin deserves the same. I'll look through the links when I have more time but I've seen many of them already from the looks of it. Lots of discussion on a church she left but no evidence that she herself was part of that group.
And they still have not shown proof that she banned any books or that there was any more to the question.

I'm looking forward to her interview tonight but I'm wondering if most will even hear her for listening for something they can magnify out of proportion.

[anriana]

The main thing I'm noticing is how the GOP is trying to frame any criticism of Palin into a "OMG YOU BASHED A WOMAN, YOU MUST APOLOGIZE NOW!" contest.

I mean, aren't Republicans the ones who are usually telling folks to get a thicker skin? It's been amusing seeing McCain's campaign staff acting like toddlers running to mommy because someone was mean.



http://www.thedailyshow.com/video/index.jhtml?videoId=184086&title=sarah-palin-gender-card

I think you'll enjoy this video. It's clips of Republican talking heads saying Hillary has a thin skin/is playing the victim card and then saying the complete opposite for Palin.

[Amethyst Hunter]

I still see no proof that Palin herself is involved in the group. She left that Church but people refuse to mention that fact.

So she says. I can't help you there, but personally, I wouldn't trust that woman any further than I could throw her, given what I've seen. Dominionists/friendlies are VERY good at concealing their tracks (though it is good to see more and more of them being exposed) for a long time. Hardly anyone had heard of dominionism back in 2000, or even 2004 - now thanks to the current bunch, it's getting the much-needed attention it deserves (and still needs even more of, this crap is so deeply embedded...).

Where I stand against abortion is the way it's used for birth control. That's actually pretty much the norm for most pro-lifers. If two people have sex they should accept the risks.

Palin saying she would choose life was a personal decision, as was mine, but to listen to her detractors they make it appear as if she flat out stated she would take that choice from rape victims. She didn't.

Yet. Remember, we'll have ample opportunity in the next 4 years to replace a couple of Supreme Court Justices. And Roe v. Wade is already hotly contested by those who would gladly take away *all* right to choose - including that of contraception. McCain openly said his administration would be a "pro-life" one (read: continuing the restrictive Bush policies), and while he might be a tiny, tiny smidgen of moderate (which I'm inclined to doubt), his running mate most definitely fits the bill of repression given her background.

All the hardcore right-wings have come out of the woodwork and are salivating at the chance to tighten the pressure on women even more than it already is - we have people who believe pharmacists and doctors should be allowed to discriminate against anyone they choose, just because they may disagree with someone's personal life. Why aren't they doing this to men who want Viagra? Why aren't they doing it to their own because they think disease is God's punishment on anyone who is sick? Because this is open war on all women, a goal explicitly stated by the dominionists. Allowing a woman to control when, how, or even if she will have children means that woman has control of her own destiny, and these people won't allow that. They literally believe that all women are inferior, second-class citizens, no better than property for men and must therefore be controlled - and denying them reproductive freedom by cutting off access to medical care/services is just one step on that road to total enslavement.

One of the most common false assumptions being spread is that abortion is being used en masse as a primary form of birth control. That's wrong. Maybe there are a very, very few women who do this (and I disagree with it too myself), but by and large this is not the norm and the statistics bear that out. Most women definitely prefer to *avoid* getting to that point if they can help it. Hell, I've told friends that if I ever met a guy I'd seriously consider for a long-term relationship (unlikely at this point), there's *no* way I'm ever having sex with him unless the both of us are sterilized, I'm (still) on my pill (currently take it for an irregular cycle) and he's got a condom, that's how much I don't want any unpleasant surprises.

The vast majority of abortions stem from BC failure (i.e., condom breaks, pill goes wonky) or lack of any BC at all (especially for poorer women in rural areas, who may not be able to get to a clinic that offers these services), which is why educating people about it is so important (yes, sadly, we still have people in this day and age who believe those chestnuts about "if he pulls out you're safe"). Abstinence may be the preferred ideal for certain age groups (aka teens) and that's fine, but it's unrealistic to expect that every teenager on earth is going to stay abstinent indefinitely unless we can figure out a way to encourage such (and *not* through fearmongering or threats - most people don't respond very well to that type of 'motivation', least of all teenagers).

The statement "if two people have sex they should accept the risks" is rather loaded. Most sensible folk already know how people get made and do take proper precautions; should they be punished if they wind up on the losing end of the deal? What if a married couple (and obviously it'd be tough to find anybody who disapproves of sex within marriage, except for maybe those diehard nuts who think it's strictly for procreation and somehow spousal enjoyment is 'bad') has chosen not to have any kids at all, or limit the size of their family, and they have sex and that little stick turns the wrong color? Should they be forced to take on a burden they may not want or be able to afford? (and that includes the whole 9 yards, so to speak) I don't think so. Nobody is entitled to anything from another person's body.

I don't trust Palin one bit to exercise any common sense when addressing solutions for lowering the abortion rate and improving contraception success/access. It's pretty clear the abstinence-only agenda failed her daughter (who, unlike most women, will have plenty of access to whatever resources she needs - for the vast majority of females, teen pregnancy is a fast road to poverty ruin**).

they still have not shown proof that she banned any books or that there was any more to the question.

Snopes already pointed this out in one of the previously-mentioned links (also proving false that there was ever a 'hit list' of books to be banned) - she may not have actually banned any books, but it's clear enough that she *was* asking about a hypothetical situation related to book-banning, which should be worrisome enough, as any librarian will doubtless say. Worse, she obviously got pissy when the people she questioned told her they would under no circumstances back her if she ever did decide to pose any bans, and she wielded enough power at the time to try to threaten them into compliance. That right there marks her as a bully - and if there's one thing on this earth that I truly despise above all else, one thing that I hate and loathe with the fire of infinite sunlight, it's bullies. We've had 8 years of bullies, that's more than enough.

I'm looking forward to her interview tonight but I'm wondering if most will even hear her for listening for something they can magnify out of proportion.

Would you classify the threat of war with RUSSIA as being out of proportion? That's pretty damn serious, and it came straight from Palin's mouth (see below link). Especially given that the dominionists have always painted Russia as one of the Big Enemies in their fantasy End-Times War that they're spoiling for (one reason why they're so eager to go screw up the Middle East some more).

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/7611625.stm - BBC report on the interview, and the words:

Asked whether her support for Georgian membership of Nato meant that the US would have to go to war if Russia again invaded Georgia, Mrs Palin said that was a possibility.

"Perhaps so. I mean, that is the agreement when you are a Nato ally, if another country is attacked, you're going to be expected to be called upon and help."

That's not something to take lightly at ALL. Russia's already accused the US of provoking something in Georgia - there may or may not have been US citizens in the region at the time of ongoing conflict; reports on this vary - and given that there are increasing reports of dominionist activity *overseas* in nations like Russia, this is very suspect indeed. Handling Russia's new evolution is going to be a very tricky task, and I want somebody who's going to use their bloody head, stay calm and not provoke all-out warfare - which frankly, I fully see Palin and McCain as capable of doing (McCain is known for his infamous temper tantrums).

Incidentally, here's some food for thought: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/7606100.stm - according to this BBC poll, 22 nations *overwhelmingly* prefer Obama to be the next President and think that international relations under an Obama administration would improve.

In 17 countries, the most common view was that US relations with the rest of the world would improve under Mr Obama.

If Republican Mr McCain were elected, the most common view was that relations would remain about the same. (Which is to say, still pretty crappy considering Bush II's damage)

And Americans are agreeing:

The US public was polled separately and Americans also believed an Obama presidency would improve US ties with the world more than a McCain presidency.

I think that's pretty telling.




** = Yes, I know that there are some folks on here that were pregnant as teenagers and that comment was not directed at them. There's still no denying the fact that it is *much* harder to deal with life in general as a teen mom, as opposed to waiting until one is better-prepared to take on that kind of stress. There's a reason poverty runs in family cycles where reproductive control is restricted or limited.

[Boozy]

Asked whether her support for Georgian membership of Nato meant that the US would have to go to war if Russia again invaded Georgia, Mrs Palin said that was a possibility.

"Perhaps so. I mean, that is the agreement when you are a Nato ally, if another country is attacked, you're going to be expected to be called upon and help."

NATO is a military alliance. The entire point of which is that if one member nation is attacked, the alliance responds as though every member nation was attacked. While it does not necessarily mean automatic war, it has to be on the table. Many NATO members support full membership for Georgia.

There are two trains of thought: One is that Russia will be needlessly antagonized if Georgia joins NATO, and the conflict will be renewed. NATO would then be forced to become involved. Others think that if Georgia has NATO's backing, Russia would be more willing to discuss diplomatic solutions. Because Putin (oops, I mean Medvedev) has been so inscrutable, its hard to say which camp is in the right. It's a tense and complicated situation.

I'm no fan of Palin, but I don't think she should necessarily to judged harshly on this particular issue, especially when many nations with moderate and secular governments agree with her.

[IDrinkaRum]

Did anyone watch the interview with Palin by Charles Gibson? From what I understand, it was heavily edited for television. If you want to get a complete understanding of her answers, you'd have to go to the ABC website and find the transcript. You'll be shocked & amazed by what was left out.

When I realized the amount of editing done, I was disgusted.

[Greenday]

Did anyone watch the interview with Palin by Charles Gibson? From what I understand, it was heavily edited for television. If you want to get a complete understanding of her answers, you'd have to go to the ABC website and find the transcript. You'll be shocked & amazed by what was left out.

When I realized the amount of editing done, I was disgusted.

Disgusted that ABC portrayed her as a horrid witch? Or disgusted as ABC edited out the bad stuff? I didn't watch.

[IDrinkaRum]

Disgusted that they edited out stuff that made her answers to Mr. Gibson's questions much more different than they really were.

From what I understand (I didn't watch it either), they edited out some really good stuff from her answers.

As for making her look like a witch? With enough editing, any one can look like the Anti-Christ or witch or whatever else the media want you to look like.

[SuperB]

They edited it alright:
http://marklevinshow.com/gibson-interview/ And pulled a Michael Moore in the process. Watching the headlines now, they're claiming she's stated we may need to go to war with Russia. That she's open to it. What they edited out was this:
PALIN: What I think is that smaller democratic countries that are invaded by a larger power is something for us to be vigilant against. We have got to be cognizant of what the consequences are if a larger power is able to take over smaller democratic countries.

And we have got to be vigilant. We have got to show the support, in this case, for Georgia. The support that we can show is economic sanctions perhaps against Russia, if this is what it leads to.

It doesn’t have to lead to war and it doesn’t have to lead, as I said, to a Cold War, but economic sanctions, diplomatic pressure, again, counting on our allies to help us do that in this mission of keeping our eye on Russia and Putin and some of his desire to control and to control much more than smaller democratic countries.

[AdminAssistant]

The support that we can show is economic sanctions perhaps against Russia, if this is what it leads to.

Which will only affect Russia's poorest citizens. Of course, Putin was elected...

One of my professors has studied Russian/Soviet theatre extensively and made many trips to the Soviet Union (she switched her research in the 1990's to American theatre). She has a true love of the Russian people - she literally wept in class one day, talking about Putin and how bad things were getting.

I'm not saying that he's not somebody that we need to have a close eye on. But Russia is certainly not our problem alone, and this is something that America needs to work on through the United Nations.

[BlaqueKatt]

She also seems pretty ill-prepared for a job the size of Vice President. The town I live in is bigger than the town she ran, and I sure as hell wouldn't want my Mayor running for any federal office.

population of the STATE SHE IS GOVERNOR of(yes she was a mayor but she is currently a sitting governor of an entire state)
670,053 as of 2006 census
(http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/states/02000.html)

Population of Delaware(where Joe Biden Obama's running mate is from)

853,476 as of 2006 census (http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/states/10000.html)

And they've already foiled one assassination attempt (http://cbs4denver.com/investigates/assisination.plot.obama.2.802827.html) against Obama just before the DNC-sadly with the was some people in this country are-I doubt it will be the last

[CancelMyService]

The difference of course is that Biden's had tons more experience as a Senator (which is just a tad more involved than being a Governor).

All the complaining about the media can't hide the fact that McCain made a desperation move to pick a woman VP, and in doing so he has someone woefully under experienced for any national level job theoretically a heartbeat away from leading the free world.

That doesn't even take into account all the scary extreme right views she held for so long and is only now trying to back away from now that people are paying attention.


Seriously, what has McCain/Palin brought to the table to make anyone want to have them in charge? McCain's "OMG I'M A MAVERICK~!" shtick? Which, if I recall, was a creation of the evil MEDIA whenever he was running against W back in 2000? All he's done is vote with Bush when it matters and vote against him when there was no chance of the bill losing so he can keep his "street cred" as someone sticking it to the GOP. What else is there? Palin's "gun toting MILF hockey mom" routine? They are bringing literally nothing to the table other than the same tired old "liberals will tax and spend" BS.

It's especially hilarious that all of a sudden McCain's suddenly going around promoting change after scoffing at Obama carrying the same mantra for months. I guess he's figuring it out that most people really don't want another 4 years of gross incompetence and free handouts to billionaires.

[BlaqueKatt]

The difference of course is that Biden's had tons more experience as a Senator (which is just a tad more involved than being a Governor).

All the complaining about the media can't hide the fact that McCain made a desperation move to pick a woman VP, and in doing so he has someone woefully under experienced for any national level job theoretically a heartbeat away from leading the free world.

um remember A lovely president we had by the name of Theodore Roosevelt?
He was picked as VP with only 2 terms as a governor-wow he needed more experiance-good to know.

From this website (http://www.theodoreroosevelt.org/life/timeline.htm)

1882-1884 Served in New York State Assembly.(age 23 to 25)

Dec. 31, 1898 - Dec. 31, 1900 Governor of New York.

March 4-
Sept. 14, 1901 Vice President of the United States.

September 14, 1901 At age 42, Roosevelt becomes the 26th President of the United States and is sworn into office at about 3:15 p.m. at the Ansley Wilcox Mansion


3 years in the state assembly and two years as governor-that was the entirety of his political experience-sad that by today's standards one of the greatest presidents we have ever had in this country wouldn't even have a chance due to being "too inexperienced"

[CancelMyService]

Wow those strawmen are taking quite the pounding, I'm sure being a Governor of what was still one of the largest populated states 100+ years ago matches up exactly with being a Governor today.

This is what kills me with conservatives and Republicans, they used to be the party of thick skin and toughness and now its all "mommy, make the bad media stop being mean to me!"

Seriously, is this all they have to offer? McCain/Palin have offered pretty much zero in terms of anything other than continuing the Bush legacy with a less-impaired sounding President at the helm. I don't care how many ads they run claiming to be "mavericks", the fact remains when the chips were down, McCain was for whatever the administration wanted. Personally I didn't agree with much of what they wanted, so therefore I don't have any reason or motivation to vote for them.

[linguist]

um remember A lovely president we had by the name of Theodore Roosevelt?
He was picked as VP with only 2 terms as a governor-wow he needed more experiance-good to know.


remember a lovely president we have by the name of george w bush? who's entire political experience (other than riding daddy's coattails during sr.'s presidential campaign) consists of a failed run for the house of representatives in 1978 and 1.5 terms as governor?

bang-up job he's done.

[BlaqueKatt]

remember a lovely president we have by the name of george w bush? who's entire political experience (other than riding daddy's coattails during sr.'s presidential campaign) consists of a failed run for the house of representatives in 1978 and 1.5 terms as governor?

bang-up job he's done.



well there's also former president clinton(who was impeached, and passed a law by the name of the "defense of marriage act" that limits a marriage to be defined as betwen a man and a woman) -who had no political experience other than being governor of Arkansas-he was defeated when he ran for congress. But I forgot you can only attack the experience of non-democrats. :rolleyes:

[Pedersen]

well there's also former president clinton(who was impeached, and passed a law by the name of the "defense of marriage act" that limits a marriage to be defined as betwen a man and a woman)

Slight nitpick: The Defense of Marriage Act (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Defense_of_Marriage_Act) was passed by rather a few Republicans in the House and Senate (http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Defense_of_Marriage_Act). In fact, the voting was so in favor of it (342-67 in House, 85-14 in Senate) that Clinton vetoing was not an option. The two portions of Congress had already overcome the 2/3 majority to pass it into law.

Add in that the both houses were overwhelmingly Republican (and not Democrat)...

Come on, you can do better than that, right? I mean, I disliked Clinton a lot too (let's face it, he lied under oath, regardless of whether the investigation was proper, he did it), but to claim that Clinton passed a law that had already been put into place and overridden his veto power in the process?

Misleading, at the very best.

[AdminAssistant]

well there's also former president clinton(who was impeached, and passed a law by the name of the "defense of marriage act" that limits a marriage to be defined as betwen a man and a woman) -who had no political experience other than being governor of Arkansas-he was defeated when he ran for congress. But I forgot you can only attack the experience of non-democrats. :rolleyes:

Clinton was the Governor for multiple terms (12 years total, I believe) and was the chair of the National Governor's Association. He also spent a few years as the Attorney General of Arkansas. After he got his Juris Doctorate from Yale. Also, Arkansas, despite its reputation has a considerably higher population than Alaska. I'm not saying Clinton was perfect, but he did come into the office with an Ivy League education and 12 years of state-level executive experience.

As much as I dislike Mike Huckabee, I was sort of proud that my home state of hillbillies and rednecks produced a two term president and a potential presidential nominee in the past 16 years. :D