Menu
Jump to content

What's with the ads?

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Beth in SW WA

McCain picked Sarah Palen, Governor of Alaska, as VP

Recommended Posts

 

From the link:

"what about the fact that she runs a state that happens to be very close to Russia?"

:smilielol5:

 

"Maj. Gen. Craig Campbell, adjutant general of the Alaska National Guard, considers Palin "extremely responsive and smart" and says she is in charge when it comes to in-state services, such as emergencies and natural disasters where the National Guard is the first responder.

 

But, in an interview with The Associated Press on Sunday, he said he and Palin play no role in national defense activities, even when they involve the Alaska National Guard. The entire operation is under federal control, and the governor is not briefed on situations."

 

That is a more accurate representation IMHO. Alaska's proximity to Russia is totally meaningless.

 

"No doubt the campaign staff have her hooked up to a fire hose on foreign policy issues," said Stephen C. Donehoo, managing director of Kissinger McLarty Associates in Washington and a former military intelligence officer."

 

Love the fire hose analogy :lol:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Here you go:

 

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2008/8/31/16385/5462/317/581425

 

For many here, not all of the 75+ issues will be negatives. (In fact, some will be positives!)

 

I think her biggest problems will be her inexperience, the Bridge to Nowhere (she supported it until Congress pulled the plug on funding), Troopergate (abuse of executive power in an arguably good cause), and busting the town budget when she was mayor (mishandling a land deal and then eminent domain).

 

What is a dominionist and what is Joel's Army? Anyone know?

 

When I think dominionist I getting a mental picture that involves a lot of black leather and a whip, but I don't think that is what this website is saying.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
What is a dominionist and what is Joel's Army? Anyone know?

 

When I think dominionist I getting a mental picture that involves a lot of black leather and a whip, but I don't think that is what this website is saying.

 

I am posting this solely for people to inform themselves, NOT to insult anyone's religious beliefs or as a comment to issues related to the election.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dominionist

 

http://www.letusreason.org/Latrain10.htm

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I am posting this solely for people to inform themselves, NOT to insult anyone's religious beliefs or as a comment to issues related to the election.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dominionist

 

http://www.letusreason.org/Latrain10.htm

 

 

I think the Dominion article was relatively fair. I am a Kuyperian myself. I believe that as Christians our lives and ideas should influence the world. I don't believe we should "dominate" non-Christians through force. I am not a Ralph Reed political Machiavellian either. I need to read the other one now. I've never heard of it! Joel's Army???

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I fond the second article to be a jumble of nonsense, mixing all sorts of theological parties and categories that don't belong together. Postmillenialists and charismatics? I'm postmillenial, and I believe Kelli is charismatic (is that right Kelli?) If you went to our respective churches I doubt you'd find much in common other than a general love for our Lord and very basic theology. I'm still none the wiser who these people are supposed to be.:)

 

I am posting this solely for people to inform themselves, NOT to insult anyone's religious beliefs or as a comment to issues related to the election.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dominionist

 

http://www.letusreason.org/Latrain10.htm

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
When I think dominionist I getting a mental picture that involves a lot of black leather and a whip,.

 

 

hey-- you got a problem w/ a lot of black leather and a whip?

 

:D

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I think how Mr Obama ran his primary campaign is an excellent example of executive leadership. Look at the skill, and organization of his run.

 

I don't believe any fair-minded person would be able to deny Mr Obama has run a far more businesslike, efficient, team-building campaign than has John Mc Cain (like his politics, or not). Barak has leadership ability, where his opponent simply does not.

 

Bill

 

Assuming someone has the ability to govern in the civil sphere because they can organize a campaign is akin to assuming a landscape painter knows how to garden. The government is not a business though many assume the same principles unilaterally apply, and some people run their business like it's a regiment of the army - but this generally makes for much complaining among the employees.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Assuming someone has the ability to govern in the civil sphere because they can organize a campaign is akin to assuming a landscape painter knows how to garden.

 

But it wasn't merely organizing a campaign. That's why I included the link from The Atlantic:

 

Furthermore, in Silicon Valley’s unique reckoning, what everyone else considered to be Obama’s major shortcomings—his youth, his inexperience—here counted as prime assets.

 

I asked Roos, the personification of a buttoned-down corporate attorney, if there had been concerns about Obama’s limited CV, and for a moment he looked as if he might burst out laughing. “No one in Silicon Valley sits here and thinks, ‘You need massive inside-the-Beltway experience,’†he explained, after a diplomatic pause. “Sergey and Larry were in their early 20s when they started Google. The YouTube guys were also in their 20s. So were the guys who started Facebook. And I’ll tell you, we recognize what great companies have been built on, and that’s ideas, talent, and inspirational leadership.â€

 

This was the dominant refrain as I traveled around the Valley. From a policy standpoint, there are many reasons for tech-minded types to support Obama, including his pledge to establish a chief technology officer for the federal government and to radically increase its transparency by making most government data available online. “Barack recognizes that people in Silicon Valley are not just talking about a set of technical questions,†Lawrence Lessig, the Stanford law professor and noted Valley demigod, told me. “It’s a broader generational issue of how to architect and orient the government on important issues, from privacy to security to competition, in ways that open up the process to everyone.â€

 

[snip]

 

“What’s amazing,†says Peter Leyden of the New Politics Institute, “is that Hillary built the best campaign that has ever been done in Democratic politics on the old model—she raised more money than anyone before her, she locked down all the party stalwarts, she assembled an all-star team of consultants, and she really mastered this top-down, command-and-control type of outfit. And yet, she’s getting beaten by this political start-up that is essentially a totally different model of the new politics.†[bolding mine]

 

That's the sort of stuff that sold me on Obama. But hey, what do I know? I come from a business background.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Does it bother anyone else that she has five kids (4 at home, I think), one an infant with Downes' Syndrome? My heart just really lurched when I saw her kids yesterday. I have to admit I feel like she should be staying at home taking care of her kids. Is her husband a stay-at-home dad, by any chance? It sounds like she is a wonderful candidate, but this bothers me, and will definitely be a factor in my voting decision (I keep telling my dh I'm going to write him in:D).

 

Yeah, this bothers me...maybe more than it should. I just don't like the idea of children being sacrificed because of their parent's ambitions. I just don't see how one can do this job and the campaigning that goes along with it without sacrificing one's family. I kinda feel bad for Obama's daughters too in this regard.

 

Susan in TX

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Yeah, this bothers me...maybe more than it should. I just don't like the idea of children being sacrificed because of their parent's ambitions. I just don't see how one can do this job and the campaigning that goes along with it without sacrificing one's family. I kinda feel bad for Obama's daughters too in this regard.

 

Susan in TX

 

This black man agrees with you, girl. Enjoy!

 

P.S., this link is only for those who are not easily inflamed by a different point of view.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
hey-- you got a problem w/ a lot of black leather and a whip?

 

:D

 

How did somebody who likes black leather and a whip get so many rep points? I guess it's by salting your speech to make it palatable. I, on the other hand, having been on this forum for just over a day, seem to be getting 'whipped' by troll-sniffers using rep points like teachers use red ink. I didn't realize when I signed up for this thing that the bell curve rang with such derision for variety!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
This black man agrees with you, girl. Enjoy!

 

P.S., this link is only for those who are not easily inflamed by a different point of view.

 

Thanks for the link. He summed up my feelings on this quite well. I think this quote says it all, "In essence, the message being sent to women by conservative Christians backing McCain/Palin is, 'It’s ok to sacrifice your family on the altar of your career; just don’t have an abortion.' How pro-family is that?"

 

Yet on the surface it looks pro-family, after all she is toting the baby around with her and it looks like the whole family will be on the campaign trail but I'm just not sure that the reality of being VP allows for putting family first.

 

Susan in TX

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I see it completely different. She's the boss. She has a better chance of controlling her schedule than any woman in corporate America or at any other job for that matter.

 

I don't understand the Christian issue. Women are to submit to their dh's at home. But working women, have to submit to the authorities at work. The two are often in conflict, and yet she has the opportunity to have no conflict, at all. She would be the VP of the U. S. Who's going to fire her or complain because she has a baby at work in the White House.

 

Some women have to work, and some women choose to work. All of us homeschool moms are working moms. We have full-time jobs. Who are we to criticize her for doing the exact same thing?

 

We wear our slings while we teach algebra, history, and lecture on mathematics. Are our jobs somehow exempt because it's in our home rather than the white house. I mean, really, we work hard and we do it with our children. Why can't she?

 

We stay up with sick children half the night. We work at church, we bus kids all around. The only difference I see is that we get no glory while she will be getting tons of kudos for her work.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
This black man agrees with you, girl. Enjoy!

 

 

I agree w/ Voddie Bauchan on a lot of things. But not this!

 

I think its great that Mr. Palin is a stay-home-dad of sorts. Who cares if its the wife or the husband that goes to work, as long as one parent is at home w/ the kids. (using the pro-family argument)

 

Is SWB somehow not pro-family because she does all the fabulous things in and out of her home as she fulfills the calling God has put on her life? All this while her dh is home doing science and calculus, dishes, laundry, wiping noses, etc while Susan is on book tours -- or (gasp) blessing us!! Who is more pro-family than Susan?? or her dh, for that matter...

 

A family w/ a s-a-h dad is still putting family first, imho.

 

Sorry, I'm ranting because this article really chaps me! :(

 

Good grief, Voddie is claiming that Sarah Palin is not pro-family enough for the Republican party. This takes the cake!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Is SWB somehow not pro-family because she does all the fabulous things in and out of her home as she fulfills the calling God has put on her life?

 

Sure, sometimes circumstances legitimately call for a dad to stay at home with the kids. But I think we overlook something very fundamental in the way God made women - they have the created "supplies" to nourish a child's life from the get-go. Don't you think there's a lesson here for who God wants to be the primary caregiver for children?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I sit here stunned at the harsh remarks made about Palin being a working mother... sacrificing her children... or ignoring her motherly duties

 

A father can be just as critical to the raising of the family as a mother, yet I see no criticisms of the men who, due to their job, must leave their families for a week, a month, or a year or more at a time.

 

In the case of Palin, from what I've read, her husband has been assuming a much greater role at home while she has been a full-time governor. Who are any of us to say that her husband isn't fully capable of assisting in raising and nurturing at home while she is at work?

 

I'm a working mom. I'm expecting my 5th child. I am fortunate enough to be able to do the majority of my FULL TIME work from home. For a while, I earned 5x the income as my husband (the first 5 years of our 11yr. marriage...), during that time I became a mother to two children here on earth...

 

Such sweeping judgemental statements, without regard to circumstances, without regard to family support, without regard to even knowing the people in question disturb me greatly.

 

Moreover, they are downright hurtful.

 

Does she *have* to be in politics? That's a different debate -- but it appears she was called to the task, and her husband has supported her efforts.

 

Isn't THAT what is important? She didn't do any of this behind his back, and he is a huge cheerleader supporting her. She's not tearing her family apart -- she's serving in a capacity she for which she was called.

 

Will it be tough? You bet. Could I do it? No, I couldn't -- but that is not my calling.

 

There are lots of different women, who have many different gifts and talents. I gave up trying to compare myself to "other moms" a long time ago.

 

I have a sister-in-law who is incredibly creative, very crafty, is expecting her 11th child, grinds her own flour, bakes bread, makes clothes, homeschools... all of those things. I could NEVER be her, becase I am NOT gifted in that way.

 

But you know what? She can't be me either. She couldn't accomplish what I do in a day. She couldn't hold down my job, and homeschool my children with the curriculums we've chosen to use, and keep my house orderly either. My schedule tires her out -- just as hers tires me out.

 

We are different. And, those differences should be celebrated -- because we are each the woman God intended us to be.

 

Yet, what I've read here just now not only undermines the unique calling of each woman, but it shows distinct distain -- with an air of superiority.

 

It's bad enough, that when I need to attend a convention, due to my job (whose main purpose is SHOPPING & BUYING), in my industry with a 5 month-old breastfeeding infant I am told by the convention show go-ers that "it was my choice to have a baby," and that my "business must not be that important to me." And, if I *need* to feed my baby, I can "go into the bathroom and pump."

 

But to find essentially the same attitude here? Only instead of being told I have to sacrifice feeding my child, here I'm told I have to sacrifice my career -- or I'm not a good mother?

 

Wow.... just wow.

 

 

 

 

(for the record, the convention I attend twice yearly is not nearly as formal as some people might think. We're not talking boardroom meetings and business classes -- we're talking shorts, t-shirts and women running around trying to win prizes, and make crafts).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I sit here stunned at the harsh remarks made about Palin being a working mother... sacrificing her children... or ignoring her motherly duties

 

A father can be just as critical to the raising of the family as a mother, yet I see no criticisms of the men who, due to their job, must leave their families for a week, a month, or a year or more at a time.

 

In the case of Palin, from what I've read, her husband has been assuming a much greater role at home while she has been a full-time governor. Who are any of us to say that her husband isn't fully capable of assisting in raising and nurturing at home while she is at work?

 

I'm a working mom. I'm expecting my 5th child. I am fortunate enough to be able to do the majority of my FULL TIME work from home. For a while, I earned 5x the income as my husband (the first 5 years of our 11yr. marriage...), during that time I became a mother to two children here on earth...

 

Such sweeping judgemental statements, without regard to circumstances, without regard to family support, without regard to even knowing the people in question disturb me greatly.

 

Moreover, they are downright hurtful.

 

Does she *have* to be in politics? That's a different debate -- but it appears she was called to the task, and her husband has supported her efforts.

 

Isn't THAT what is important? She didn't do any of this behind his back, and he is a huge cheerleader supporting her. She's not tearing her family apart -- she's serving in a capacity she for which she was called.

 

Will it be tough? You bet. Could I do it? No, I couldn't -- but that is not my calling.

 

There are lots of different women, who have many different gifts and talents. I gave up trying to compare myself to "other moms" a long time ago.

 

I have a sister-in-law who is incredibly created, very crafty, is expecting her 11th child, grinds her own flour, bakes bread, makes clothes, homeschools... all of those things. I could NEVER be her, becase I am NOT gifted in that way.

 

But you know what? She can't be me either. She couldn't accomplish what I do in a day. She couldn't hold down my job, and homeschool my children with the curriculums we've chosen to use, and keep my house orderly either. My schedule tires her out -- just as hers tires me out.

 

We are different. And, those differences should be celebrated -- because we are each the woman God intended us to be.

 

Yet, what I've read here just now not only undermines the unique calling of each woman, but it shows distinct distain -- with an air of superiority.

 

It's bad enough, that when I need to attend a convention, due to my job (whose main purpose is SHOPPING & BUYING), in my industry with a 5 month-old breastfeeding infant I am told by the convention show go-ers that "it was my choice to have a baby," and that my "business must not be that important to me." And, if I *need* to feed my baby, I can "go into the bathroom and pump."

 

But to find essentially the same attitude here? Only instead of being told I have to sacrifice feeding my child, here I'm told I have to sacrifice my career -- or I'm not a good mother?

 

Wow.... just wow.

 

 

 

 

 

 

:iagree: I'm sitting here with my mouth open in shock.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
But I think we overlook something very fundamental in the way God made women - they have the created "supplies" to nourish a child's life from the get-go. Don't you think there's a lesson here for who God wants to be the primary caregiver for children?

 

Yes, in my dh words, "it's in a handy to-go package." The nurturing can take place anywhere -- we aren't limited by stoves and boiling pots of water. :D

 

Even during biblical times, women took care of business outside of the home. The Proverbs 31 woman didn't just manage her household, she created wealth through buying and selling of land, purchasing a vineyard, weaving cloth, selling linens and more! Moreover, I wouldn't doubt that she did it with a child in tow, if need be.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Yes, in my dh words, "it's in a handy to-go package." The nurturing can take place anywhere -- we aren't limited by stoves and boiling pots of water. :D

 

Even during biblical times, women took care of business outside of the home. The Proverbs 31 woman didn't just manage her household, she created wealth through buying and selling of land, purchasing a vineyard, weaving cloth, selling linens and more! Moreover, I wouldn't doubt that she did it with a child in tow, if need be.

 

You go girl! :D

:auto:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Don't you think there's a lesson here for who God wants to be the primary caregiver for children?

 

No,

 

I know some moms who are just not meant to be sahm's. Their husbands do an awesome job of fulfilling the role of nurturer and primary caregiver, while the wives do the bread-winning. I don't have a problem w/ it, as long as the kids are cared for by at least one parent.

 

But I'm not about to cast stones at someone who sends their kids to daycare. Or worse yet -- school! (Joking -- my little ones will go to "school") :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Forgive me if this has already been linked, but I thought this blog post by Elizabeth Foss, author of Real Learning, was very thoughtful and well written. It was written in response to a comment criticizing Palin for not staying at home with her children.

 

Eating Our Own

 

*Foss is Catholic so there will be Christian content.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Forgive me if this has already been linked, but I thought this blog post by Elizabeth Foss, author of Real Learning, was very thoughtful and well written. It was written in response to a comment criticizing Palin for not staying at home with her children.

 

Eating Our Own

 

*Foss is Catholic so there will be Christian content.

 

Thank you so much for posting this. What a wise woman!

 

Here's one of my favorite quotes from that article:

 

We eat our own. We make up litmus tests and then level judgments. Does she dress the way a Christian woman should? Does she wear her hair the way a Christian woman should? Does she go to the "right" parish? Does she manage her finances the "right' way? Use the "right" curriculum? Spend her time the "right" way? Does she have enough children and are they spaced the "right" way? If the answers don't fit what we've decided--in our opinions--constitute holiness, we chew the woman up and spit her out in disgust.

 

And we become women of opinion, not conviction, to use a phrase coined by Colleen Mitchell. We become women who are so preoccupied by judging and condemning that we tear down our own homes with our own hands. The spirit of condemnation pervades the very being of the woman and erodes at the gentleness, peacefulness, and goodness her family deserves. She becomes a bitter women and her life bears bitter fruit.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Forgive me if this has already been linked, but I thought this blog post by Elizabeth Foss, author of Real Learning, was very thoughtful and well written. It was written in response to a comment criticizing Palin for not staying at home with her children.

 

Eating Our Own

 

*Foss is Catholic so there will be Christian content.

 

I was hoping for a rousing defense of women (even one I'm not voting for), but instead found this disgusting filth:

 

"We can elect a president who believes that babies who don't die in the course of abortion should be left to die alone on a dirty shelf in a hospital".

 

Yecch :glare:

 

Bill

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I was hoping for a rousing defense of women (even one I'm not voting for), but instead found this disgusting filth:

 

"We can elect a president who believes that babies who don't die in the course of abortion should be left to die alone on a dirty shelf in a hospital".

 

Yecch :glare:

 

Bill

 

Sorry you were offended (and I mean that). Remember it is a Christian blog. I cannot tell you the nonsense I read on well respected blogs. And you'd probably agree with some of it. It's another viewpoint.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"We can elect a president who believes that babies who don't die in the course of abortion should be left to die alone on a dirty shelf in a hospital". Yecch :glare:

 

Bill

 

Yeah, that was pretty yucky. :tongue_smilie:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I was hoping for a rousing defense of women (even one I'm not voting for), but instead found this disgusting filth:

 

"We can elect a president who believes that babies who don't die in the course of abortion should be left to die alone on a dirty shelf in a hospital".

 

Yecch :glare:

 

Bill

 

It's truth though isn't it? Seriously. It's just that this is a bitter pill to swallow.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sorry you were offended (and I mean that). Remember it is a Christian blog. I cannot tell you the nonsense I read on well respected blogs. And you'd probably agree with some of it. It's another viewpoint.

 

I sometimes wonder if Jesus would consider this kind of talk "Christian"?

 

Honestly, not trying to be "snarky" here. Seems the antithesis of his message as I (in my limited way) understand it.

 

Bill

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I sometimes wonder if Jesus would consider this kind of talk "Christian"?

 

Honestly, not trying to be "snarky" here. Seems the antithesis of his message as I (in my limited way) understand it.

 

Bill

 

Honestly, yes I think he would. He wouldn't be quiet about partial birth abortion.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It is one thing to oppose late term abortion, I oppose late term abortion, it is a whole 'nuther matter saying that Barack Obama "believes that babies who don't die in the course of abortion should be left to die alone on a dirty shelf in a hospital".

 

That is a hideous and monstrous slander.

 

Elizabeth Floss should be ashamed of herself.

 

Bill

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
It is one thing to oppose late term abortion, I oppose late term abortion, it is a whole 'nuther matter saying that Barack Obama "believes that babies who don't die in the course of abortion should be left to die alone on a dirty shelf in a hospital".

 

That is a hideous and monstrous slander.

 

Elizabeth Floss should be ashamed of herself.

 

Bill

 

 

x

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
It is one thing to oppose late term abortion, I oppose late term abortion, it is a whole 'nuther matter saying that Barack Obama "believes that babies who don't die in the course of abortion should be left to die alone on a dirty shelf in a hospital".

 

That is a hideous and monstrous slander.

 

Elizabeth Floss should be ashamed of herself.

 

Bill

 

What's hideous and monstrous is the way partial birth abortions are performed. I recommend you do some research on the procedure.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
What's hideous and monstrous is the way partial birth abortions are performed. I recommend you do some research on the procedure.

 

I'm against it, was I unclear?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
It is one thing to oppose late term abortion, I oppose late term abortion, it is a whole 'nuther matter saying that Barack Obama "believes that babies who don't die in the course of abortion should be left to die alone on a dirty shelf in a hospital".

 

That is a hideous and monstrous slander.

 

Elizabeth Floss should be ashamed of herself.

 

Bill

 

Found this article here

 

This is part of it speaking about the Born Alive Infants Protection Act:

So, even with the same "neutrality clause" in the bill, placed there by the very committee of which he chaired, Obama still voted against the bill. Even though for 6 years he has claimed he would have voted for the bill if the "neutrality clause" was there -- that he has been saying this whole time that the lack of that clause made him vote against the bill -- even with that claim being proven a lie, the media stays silent.

 

The fact is, Obama's abortion record is far more extreme than he and his willing Old Media accomplices are allowing for. Obama is in favor of allowing babies to die from neglect even if born completely healthy, but unwanted by the Mother. This is an extreme view.

 

Looking at this, I don't think that her view at all was slanderous. It's truth.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I'm against it, was I unclear?

 

Well, you're trying to defend a man who is not against it. He voted against banning partial birth abortion in October, 2007.

So explain how her statements are slanderous. Is it because he has never stated that it was ok to allow babies to die who are not successfully aborted? I'm not sure there's any difference in the monstrocity of that and in cutting up a baby into pieces so it can be removed from a woman's birth canal.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Well, you're trying to defend a man who is not against it. He voted against banning partial birth abortion in October, 2007.

So explain how her statements are slanderous. Is it because he has never stated that it was ok to allow babies to die who are not successfully aborted? I'm not sure there's any difference in the monstrocity of that and in cutting up a baby into pieces so it can be removed from a woman's birth canal.

 

Her website did not say, I oppose Barack Obama because he voted against Bill X, Y, or Z. Or that her views were incompatible with his, that would have been fine, it is a free country. But that is NOT what she said.

 

She said, Barack Obama "believes that babies who don't die in the course of abortion should be left to die alone on a dirty shelf in a hospital".

 

I don't believe that, and if you believe that I just don't know what to say.

 

Bill

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I was hoping for a rousing defense of women (even one I'm not voting for), but instead found this disgusting filth:

 

"We can elect a president who believes that babies who don't die in the course of abortion should be left to die alone on a dirty shelf in a hospital".

 

Yecch :glare:

 

Bill

 

I agree. that viewpoint IS disgusting filth.

 

but Obama let that viewpoint stand.

 

how about a neutral factcheck instead of one from obama's site?

 

http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/obama_and_infanticide.html

 

The state law that supposedly already required doctors to save born alive infants was riddled with loopholes --this would have closed those loopholes.

 

in short, Obama is so intent on allowing women to kill the developing human inside them that he would refuse to hold doctors using loopholes accountable to the ethic to save a born alive infant.

 

or to put it another way:

Barack Obama "believes that babies who don't die in the course of abortion should be left to die alone on a dirty shelf in a hospital.......if the attending doctors can use a loophole in an existing born alive law to let them die so we don't weaken RvW".

 

the more Obama tries to explain and defend his actions --what he BELIEVES he must do and support, regardless the atrocities committed under loopholes of existing laws-- the more indefensible I find those beliefs and actions to be.

 

we've already discussed this issue quite a bit, but if we need to continue clarifying exactly what obama did not vote for, and did not stand for, i guess we can.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I know...I know...it's daily kos...but has this been discussed yet?

 

http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2008/8/30/121350/137/486/580223

 

eta: anyone else watching CNN? Barr just suggested McCain should have vetted Palin better because something might come up in the next few weeks...mainly he was pimping the idea of Jindal.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I know...I know...it's daily kos...but has this been discussed yet?

 

http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2008/8/30/121350/137/486/580223

 

 

 

I'm confused...was this satire? Was this meant to be serious? I'm trying to wrap my mind around a roomful of "journalists" studying the chest of a 16-year-old girl to determine if it's "sticking out," which in their minds indicates that she's sucking in her stomach and therefore pregnant.

 

Seriously? Cuz, um, that strikes me as kinda pervy, to be complete honest. Ugh.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I'm confused...was this satire? Was this meant to be serious? I'm trying to wrap my mind around a roomful of "journalists" studying the chest of a 16-year-old girl to determine if it's "sticking out," which in their minds indicates that she's sucking in her stomach and therefore pregnant.

 

Seriously? Cuz, um, that strikes me as kinda pervy, to be complete honest. Ugh.

 

Journalists? Hardly.

 

Clearly, they've never had teen girls in their houses. Crazy people. But yes, serious people. The story was circulated in AK in April, then when she was selected, people found the trail and speculated on it.

 

It's the weirdest thing I've read in a Loooong time. Amazing to watch some people's lack of logical ability, though. Train-wreck reading. You don't want to look, but it's hard to look away. But I'm done even glancing at that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Yes, in my dh words, "it's in a handy to-go package." The nurturing can take place anywhere -- we aren't limited by stoves and boiling pots of water. :D

 

Even during biblical times, women took care of business outside of the home. The Proverbs 31 woman didn't just manage her household, she created wealth through buying and selling of land, purchasing a vineyard, weaving cloth, selling linens and more! Moreover, I wouldn't doubt that she did it with a child in tow, if need be.

 

Now I wish I hadn't repped your other post so I could rep this one instead.

 

Guess I will just have to hold up this sign.:iagree:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...