jackattack Posted September 1, 2008 Share Posted September 1, 2008 she's totally wrong about the pledge Your offended by under God? My carbon footprint is bigger than yours...and you know what they say about big feet. These are the times that try mens souls... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
user1991 Posted September 1, 2008 Share Posted September 1, 2008 When will the American political system evolve so that instead of the individual leaders themselves being the main focus, the actual policies of the party are the subjects that are under public scrutiny? The patronising, condescending tone of your politicians is out of touch with your general populace. I have met many intelligent Americans, and I sincerely doubt whether such a tone is even necessary to win any votes. I think instead, it creates the idea, especially from the outside looking in, that your country is a lost cause, when in actuality, it is far from it. An observation I have made though, is that politicians care less about making the country better than they do about getting into power. (This is the same in pretty much every country I can think of.) Here in Britain, if a political party suggested a system of tax that simply removed all the stupid taxes like sales tax, inheritance tax, stamp duty, and raised the income tax to about 50%, they would never get in, even if we would be paying the same amount as we would have before, because other parties would say something like "They want to take 50% of your income!!!!" when they know full well that they would take the same amount, simply under the guise of a number of different taxes, which incidentally, punish the poor, as they are the same amount for everybody, regardless of wealth (sales tax for example). All this proves is that politicians will knowingly reject the best policies simply because they feel that it would lose them votes. Isn't the whole point about making the country a better place? Hey. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mrpez Posted September 1, 2008 Author Share Posted September 1, 2008 Isn't the whole point about making the country a better place? in a perfect world, yes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mrpez Posted September 1, 2008 Author Share Posted September 1, 2008 "stupid is as stupid does, governor." sarah palin obviously needs a history lesson on the pledge of allegiance. she thinks the phrase "under god" was written by the founding fathers! "good lord this woman is a female george w. bush." http://www.dailykos.com/story/2008/8/31 ... 246/581480 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
magekillr Posted September 1, 2008 Share Posted September 1, 2008 she's totally wrong about the pledge Your offended by under God? No, but it's amusing that she thinks it's been there since the Founding Fathers and that's what her rationale was. edit: Oh, and so much for her views on sexual education. She can't even educate her own daughter: http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20080901/pl_ ... s_palin_dc Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RSBDavid Posted September 1, 2008 Share Posted September 1, 2008 I think this was a great move in McCain's part, but it's a little late. Obama has gained enough supporters (between his and Clintons) to MOST likely win the race. [software Engineer] - [Ability Bar Suggestion] - [Gaming Enthusiast] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jackattack Posted September 1, 2008 Share Posted September 1, 2008 "stupid is as stupid does, governor." sarah palin obviously needs a history lesson on the pledge of allegiance. she thinks the phrase "under god" was written by the founding fathers! "good lord this woman is a female george w. bush." http://www.dailykos.com/story/2008/8/31 ... 246/581480 If I could beg your pardon for a small favor...please no more links to the daily kos. edit:or the huffington post for that matter. Oh, and so much for her views on sexual education. She can't even educate her own daughter: At least she's keeping it and marrying the father. Better than killing it. At least they're not hypocrites. Edit: and that is a far cry from Obama who would probably force his daughter to have an abortion so she isn't "punished with a baby" My carbon footprint is bigger than yours...and you know what they say about big feet. These are the times that try mens souls... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mrpez Posted September 1, 2008 Author Share Posted September 1, 2008 if you dont like those sites, im sorry. ill find other links but ill still post links to articles i think are interesting. edit: here is one from timesonline, if you'd prefer it. http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/w ... 647965.ece Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jackattack Posted September 1, 2008 Share Posted September 1, 2008 ^^ :thumbup: My carbon footprint is bigger than yours...and you know what they say about big feet. These are the times that try mens souls... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ginger_Warrior Posted September 1, 2008 Share Posted September 1, 2008 Edit: and that is a far cry from Obama who would probably force his daughter to have an abortion so she isn't "punished with a baby" There's no evidence Obama would do any such thing, and I for one have not seen anything from Obama about abstinence-until-marriage, so he probably wouldn't be as hung up about it as your typical Republican anyway. Those of us who support a woman's right to choose sure as hell don't encourage abortion either. Contraception is always the far better option. However, she's going for a VP position. If McCain falls for whatever reason, she will be President of the largest nation on the planet. How on Earth can she lead a country of 300 million people when she cannot even lead her own daughter, just one person? If Obama is an accident waiting to happen (in your eyes, not mine), Palin is a walking disaster. Moreover, it was McCain's choice to choose her as his running mate, no one else's. If he's chosen such a clearly flawed and hypocritical person at this point, one can only imagine what he'd do with the other positions he also would have control over as President! | Favourite Game Music | Last.fm | HYT Friend Chat Rules | Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mrpez Posted September 1, 2008 Author Share Posted September 1, 2008 http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/archive/ ... 18541.aspx so much for the values sarah palin preaches. her own 17 year old daughter is pregnant. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jackattack Posted September 1, 2008 Share Posted September 1, 2008 I guess it was over the top to say he would force her but he did say he was in favor of abortion because if his daughter got pregnant he wouldn't want her "punished with a baby" And how is Palin a hypocrite? She is pro-life and had a down syndrome baby and her daughter is having her baby instead of having it secretly killed. If she decided to have her down syndrome baby killed and still said she was pro life that would be hypocritical but she's didn't. edit: all this stuff coming from the daily kos and alan colmes that the baby isn't hers or that it's her fault that he has down syndrome it pretty similar to McCain's 2000 run when all the nutjob's said he had fathered an illegititmate black child when it was actually his adopted daughter from Bangladesh. My carbon footprint is bigger than yours...and you know what they say about big feet. These are the times that try mens souls... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mrpez Posted September 1, 2008 Author Share Posted September 1, 2008 she wants to teach kids in school to be abstinent until they are married. meaning no sex-ed and clinics at school. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ginger_Warrior Posted September 1, 2008 Share Posted September 1, 2008 I'm not referring to her pro-life stance (although now you mention it, it is pretty rich of you to claim Obama would force an abortion when I could easily turn round and say Palin forced her daughter to do exactly the opposite). I'm referring to the fact she supports abstinence-until-marriage sex education for everyone else, and can't even keep her own daughter on (what she sees as) the straight and narrow. It's evidence of her complete incompetence as a leader, and McCain's incompetence at appointing jobs as a leader. | Favourite Game Music | Last.fm | HYT Friend Chat Rules | Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
1_man_army Posted September 1, 2008 Share Posted September 1, 2008 Now if she'd advocated proper sex-education rather than abstinence-until-marriage education, maybe her daughter wouldn't have become pregnant. He who learns must suffer, and, even in our sleep, pain that cannot forget falls drop by drop upon the heart,and in our own despair, against our will, comes wisdom to us by the awful grace of God. - Aeschylus (525 BC - 456 BC) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mrpez Posted September 1, 2008 Author Share Posted September 1, 2008 the irony here is palpable Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jackattack Posted September 1, 2008 Share Posted September 1, 2008 If she did force her daughter to keep the baby that's a good thing. I cannot believe you just said that. Are you seriously suggesting that parents making decisions for a 17 year old, regardless of what they feel, is a good thing? Why not just keep them as slaves and marry them off for money and land like they did in the good ol' days? I see no difference. In the Land of the Free, that attitude should be unacceptable. In this case yes. Her mother actually didn't force her to keep the baby but if she had that would be fine by me. A 17 year old is still under the control of their parents and if their parents want to stop them from committing murder that's a pretty good decision. I don't see how stopping your child from getting an abortion is akin to slavery. That's a ridiculous comparison. My carbon footprint is bigger than yours...and you know what they say about big feet. These are the times that try mens souls... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ginger_Warrior Posted September 1, 2008 Share Posted September 1, 2008 It's a blatant lack of freedom for a person to make their own choice. Once again jack, you are attempting to argue subjective points and pass them off as objective. Abortion, by definition, is not murder. | Favourite Game Music | Last.fm | HYT Friend Chat Rules | Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jackattack Posted September 1, 2008 Share Posted September 1, 2008 It's a blatant lack of freedom for a person to make their own choice. Once again jack, you are attempting to argue subjective points and pass them off as objective. Abortion, by definition, is not murder. You don't have the freedom to make your own choice if you are under 18. In this case it's irrelevant. And what is abortion if not murder? It might be legal but my definition of murder is ending the life of a human. If a baby is not human than what is it? I guess you might be on Obama's side of this where if a baby that is old enough to survive outside the mother somehow survives an abortion and is born alive they should let it die. My carbon footprint is bigger than yours...and you know what they say about big feet. These are the times that try mens souls... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
1_man_army Posted September 1, 2008 Share Posted September 1, 2008 It's a blatant lack of freedom for a person to make their own choice. Once again jack, you are attempting to argue subjective points and pass them off as objective. Abortion, by definition, is not murder. You don't have the freedom to make your own choice if you are under 18. In this case it's irrelevant. And what is abortion if not murder? It might be legal but my definition of murder is ending the life of a human. If a baby is not human than what is it? I guess you might be on Obama's side of this where if a baby that is old enough to survive outside the mother somehow survives an abortion and is born alive they should let it die. By that definition, forced marriage is fine as well. He who learns must suffer, and, even in our sleep, pain that cannot forget falls drop by drop upon the heart,and in our own despair, against our will, comes wisdom to us by the awful grace of God. - Aeschylus (525 BC - 456 BC) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jackattack Posted September 1, 2008 Share Posted September 1, 2008 I think you have to be over 18 to get married. My carbon footprint is bigger than yours...and you know what they say about big feet. These are the times that try mens souls... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
1_man_army Posted September 1, 2008 Share Posted September 1, 2008 That doesn't stop parents taking their children abroad for forced marriages. He who learns must suffer, and, even in our sleep, pain that cannot forget falls drop by drop upon the heart,and in our own despair, against our will, comes wisdom to us by the awful grace of God. - Aeschylus (525 BC - 456 BC) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jackattack Posted September 1, 2008 Share Posted September 1, 2008 I don't see where your going with that. My carbon footprint is bigger than yours...and you know what they say about big feet. These are the times that try mens souls... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
1_man_army Posted September 1, 2008 Share Posted September 1, 2008 I don't see where your going with that. Well you're advocating that forcing her to keep the child is fine because she isn't 18, why is forcing a child into marriage different? He who learns must suffer, and, even in our sleep, pain that cannot forget falls drop by drop upon the heart,and in our own despair, against our will, comes wisdom to us by the awful grace of God. - Aeschylus (525 BC - 456 BC) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mrpez Posted September 1, 2008 Author Share Posted September 1, 2008 the forced marriage argument isnt valid in this day and age. in the past it has only applied to very rich families inter-marrying with each other, and that is the only place it will survive today. since it applies only to a very small percentage of americans, it cant be used as a valid point to base your argument on. unless you start seeing forced marriages between the lower classes. what would be the point of that though? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now