McCain chooses Gov. Sarah Palin of Alaska

[IJ]

Naw, I don't want the government to break down the doors of a family with ten kids and serve a warrant or anything. I think that as a CULTURE we should recognize that we have too many people not too few and excess family size is an issue. Maybe there's someway to disincent enormous families, or incentivize reasonable ones. Maybe your 8th kid's welfare should be conditional on your preventing the 9th or at least seeing someone about birth control? Or being willing to shoulder the increased waste disposal, fuel, service needs of those kids, if there were a way to do that without taking food out of those usually poorer kids mouths? There's probably no great way, at least no ethical way, so again prevention is the issue; I can't think how we can disincent irresponsible reproduction without potentially hurting the kids. If you're rich and just hoping your brood takes over, and no one is paying taxes into your family, perhaps we should all just give you weird looks.

I can see why people would want to restrict abortion; I don't think they're crazy. I mean, you are ending human life (some part of the chain) but I think we have to be realistic about this. People don't hold funerals for gametes, or even fertilized eggs, or the very early spontaneous abortion (those are natural quality control, people, and I'm glad uteruses know better than to carry every conceived egg to term). While human life has ended, those aren't "human lives," in that they can't experience anything. If you believe a soul gets zapped into an egg along with a sperm, well... ok, but it's not a position on which to base politics, and you ought to expect to meet a handful of kids you never knew you missed when you go to heaven. There is no good threshold for deciding when abortion becomes "too bad" after that... people could use the capacity to suffer, which we could pin down, but abortions could also be made painless, as, of course, we can make euthanasia painless, but that doesn't make it right. Any pro choice person who isn't disturbed by what's done in abortion has something wrong with them, either emotionally, or they're so ideological they're not thinking straight anymore.

I am pretty set against the idea that the government should control women's healthcare just because they got pregnant, and that's where fetus = person eventually takes us. Fetus = person means drinking = child abuse means protective custody; fetus = person also leads to forced therapy and pregnancy supervision and distrust of the medical system, as well as the back alley abortion. I also am set against the idea that rape is a special excuse for an abortion. So what, really? I mean, abortion restriction isn't about the mom's feelings, it's about a baby who presumably doesn't want to be killed. It's not the baby's fault that it's father was a rapist. So how can people say they only support abortion when its an issue of health or rape? The fact that rape isn't a woman's fault only factors into abortion if insisting on continued pregnancy is a punishment for voluntary pregnancy. Rape permits abortion as an ideology is the same as saying pregnancy is optional, and that means minimally restricted abortion, and we focus on prevention through alternatives, social pressure, and birth control.

We ought to focus on prevention... wouldn't it be nice if we made it difficult to get pregnant without deliberate effort (that is, kids knew their sex ed, birth control was pushed on the population, voluntarily of course), and made adoptions an easy and widespread practice? Then we could be having fewer abortions than if we got there with restrictive laws. Anyhoo, this is off topic, my apologies... and there is no good answer.

One clear issue: being fiscally conservative and socially liberal isn't confused, it just is being different than the major parties. No problem.

[AAAhmed46]

"At some point in those fractious first days, Palin told the department heads they needed her permission to talk to reporters. "She put a gag order on those people, something that you'd expect to find in the big city, not here," says Naegele. "She flew in there like a big-city gal, which she's not. It was a strange time, and [the Frontiersman] came out very harshly against her."

Stein says that as mayor, Palin continued to inject religious beliefs into her policy at times. "She asked the library how she could go about banning books," he says, because some voters thought they had inappropriate language in them. "The librarian was aghast." That woman, Mary Ellen Baker, couldn't be reached for comment, but news reports from the time show that Palin had threatened to fire Baker for not giving "full support" to the mayor."


Source:

http://www.time.com/time/politics/artic ... 18,00.html







For the record, the only reason i don't post dirt on Obama is because his flaws are painfully obvious.

He had firm convictions in the beginning, but sold out as time went on.

I don't bring up flak on McCain for the same reason. He started out as a maverick, hell i cheered for the bugger in 2000. But he once again...sold out.

I was even cheering for him, thinking he would turn his party into a healthy direction.

[AAAhmed46]

I saw her speech as well, along with 37 million others, according to the news. She did well. A bit catty at a point or two, and her teleprompter problem may explain the sightest of stumbles at Argentina. Well-delivered and well-recieved.

And today the press has been hounding Obama about HIS experience. Once the press starts chasing its tail, it's not long before everybody gets bit. LOL.

Ahmed, the Dems will never leave the social left. Not gonna happen. It brings in most of their money. But you confused me. What's centrist about being fiscally liberal and socially conservative? That just sounds confused.

Ian, what do you want to do about families with ten kids? Do you really think government should be involved with that? I think abortion should be allowed in the case of rape and incest, and obviously to save the life of the mother or prevent severe health problems (not 'psychological 'trauma'), but I'm appalled by Obama's position which allows him to vote against protecting infants who survive botched abortions. Adoption in this country needs a complete overhaul. And finally, Planned Parenthood needs to get out of the business of sex ed, and parents need to get back into the business end of it.

Sorry, i was thinking in terms of canadian politics. Gotta keep in mind im thinking of the states.

I consider die hard Libertarians to be rather centrist overall, due to the fact that in one aspect they would be 'leftist' and 'rightwing' on another.

So far, most tend to vote right, but thats due to the dogmatic affection the left has for the nanny state.

[cxt]

IJ

I think that sounds both fair and resonable.

I also think that a "head CT and a psychiatrist" might be just the ticket for all to many people....esp those that oppose abortion but also feel that that ahm...."wrong" people should not be able to adopt.

[mhosea]

see, that's the kind of thing people should be saying, OPENLY. but they can't because no side is willing, and thus not able, to do.

Maybe in debate. Allow me. Some people are thinking in very shallow terms about Palin, dazzled by her femininity perhaps and failing to "do the math". What would Kay have brought to the ticket besides being a woman? She's yet another senator with no executive-branch experience. I think three senators in the race already was enough. Hutchison is also pro-choice and on that account alone would have failed to galvanize support for McCain among evangelicals. No executive experience and pro-choice? Hutchison also isn't somebody that most people in the country can really connect with, IMO. She's a high-class Texas lady. That plays well in Texas, but Texas usually goes Republican, anyway. How about Ohio and other "swing" states? I think Palin's got more appeal. So, suffice it to say that I'm not seeing how Hutchison could be considered (even remotely) the most qualified, especially if there wouldn't even be a job if he put her on the ticket.

[Jason Rees]

mhosea, I think you got it right. I know people who went to McCain events during his speech yesterday. People in his base are far more fired up about Palin than they are about McCain.

Ian, my main concern is keeping government out of the business of abortion entirely, and that includes stopping federal funding of abortion and abortion providers. I'd be even happier if my state got out of the business of funding abortion providers.

I think in the case of rape, and especially incest, it is important that the person bearing the pregnancy be given the choice.

Teenage pregnancy doesn't happen without teenage sex, and unfortunately society and media continue to send the message that teen sex is socially acceptable. Adoption services need to be revamped completely, as right now it's a beurocratic black hole.

As for socialism and conservative fiscal policies... I don't see how they can go together, Ian. If Obama could promise tax cuts and a smaller government, along with his billions in free giveaways, I think he would.

[Bill Glasheen]

Adam

You seem a bit confused about political views.

You and the rest of the world (including the Harvard article I cited) like to view political views on a single "republican vs. democrat" spectrum. But that doesn't quite capture the picture. Other more astute scholars of politics speak of two dimensions - the fiscal and the social one.

Being fiscally conservative and socially liberal isn't confusing at all, nor is it "centrist." It is by definition libertarian. As I often say, libertarians want government out of both their back and their front pockets.

• Fiscal conservative and social conservative = classic Republican
• Fiscal liberal and social liberal = classic Democrat
• Fiscal conservative and social liberal = classic Libertarian
• Fiscal liberal and social conservative = classic Populist

Individuals fall somewhere on the two dimensional spectrum. And that spectrum isn't binary at all. This is why you have so many "independents" in a two party system.

- Bill

[AAAhmed46]

Adam

You seem a bit confused about political views.

You and the rest of the world (including the Harvard article I cited) like to view political views on a single "republican vs. democrat" spectrum. But that doesn't quite capture the picture. Other more astute scholars of politics speak of two dimensions - the fiscal and the social one.

Being fiscally conservative and socially liberal isn't confusing at all, nor is it "centrist." It is by definition libertarian. As I often say, libertarians want government out of both their back and their front pockets.

• Fiscal conservative and social conservative = classic Republican
• Fiscal liberal and social liberal = classic Democrat
• Fiscal conservative and social liberal = classic Libertarian
• Fiscal liberal and social conservative = classic Populist

Individuals fall somewhere on the two dimensional spectrum. And that spectrum isn't binary at all. This is why you have so many "independents" in a two party system.

- Bill

I may not have communicated by thoughts right but....


So why have only two choices? Why not even the playing field?(I know there are independent parties but...do they have a chance at all for winning? No, so break apart the main parties)

[Jason Rees]

If they break apart, it'll be due to internal fighting, nothing else. Neither party is interested in losing the power they have.

[TSDguy]

AAAhmed,

1) The majority of Americans are mind bogglingly ignorant, especially of politics. I mean, like more ignorant than you can possibly imagine. Just disturbingly so. MOST have no idea how many Supreme Court justices there are, or even what their purpose is. Most have no idea what the 3 branches of the government are for that matter. Most have no idea what the Bill of Right is. These are all facts, unfortunately, and not exaggerations.

2) The powers that be are happy with the way things are, and with relatively few educated, intelligent folk running around the country, it's hard to get enough power to change things. That's one of the appeals of Ron Paul.

[mhosea]

So why have only two choices? Why not even the playing field?(I know there are independent parties but...do they have a chance at all for winning? No, so break apart the main parties)

The system in the US simply emerged, wasn't designed as such, and to legislate in this area is perilous, probably unconstitutional. There is no such "they" who might implement a suggestion to reorganize the political parties in the US. If it is to change, whether in a good or bad way, it will have to evolve.

[cxt]

TSD

And just as bad......or perhaps not .......people don't vote either.

[AAAhmed46]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iwO-M0RZp2c

[AAAhmed46]

So why have only two choices? Why not even the playing field?(I know there are independent parties but...do they have a chance at all for winning? No, so break apart the main parties)

The system in the US simply emerged, wasn't designed as such, and to legislate in this area is perilous, probably unconstitutional. There is no such "they" who might implement a suggestion to reorganize the political parties in the US. If it is to change, whether in a good or bad way, it will have to evolve.

I understand it wasn't designed that way. But the people WITHIN the party really should break it apart.

Yeah i know the flaw in that setting, if the republicans split apart(or dems), who's to say the the other pary will follow suit? In fact, probably better for the party, a dream come true if the other party split apart.(but not good for the country)

I know it's impossible for both parties to fragment simultaneously....or at all for that matter. But it's good to dream.

[AAAhmed46]

]See? Everyone likes Turducken!