New York Times article on Gov. Palin

[Slartibartfast]

 

Take for example, the Lipstick on a Pig gafoo. As I watched one network air many clips of the saying being said by many politicians, I thought it was a comment that should be overlooked and that was exactly what the media wanted me to think. We all bought it. I still believe it. But...if the more conservative side had said it, I think the media would have swung it differently and more severly without refering to any other quotations and I would never have the better. They know how people on both sides think and sometimes they fool us and sometimes they are just in your face.

 

 

I guess you must have missed the "Liberal" media being more severe when someone more conservative said it, about Clinton.

 

McCain said Clinton's proposal was "eerily" similar to the ill-fated plan she devised in 1993. "I think they put some lipstick on a pig,"

 

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/09/10/politics/animal/main4433795.shtml

[Kimber]

I'm just interested in how you balance your personal moral convictions with supporting candidates who lie. This can be said for both sides.

 

You're right. And they've both lied and crossed the line. But what choices do I have?

 

1 Vote for Obama--I wont vote pro-choice.

2 Vote 3rd party--This is what my dh might do. (I see it as throwing away my vote)

3 Vote for McCain--What I plan to do.

 

As a conservative and one who values a certain moral code, I don't expect perfect adherence to any moral code by anyone. For me, it's about trying to do what's right. No one here on this earth is perfect or has all of the answers, regardless of what church they belong to.

[Sharon in SC]

For me, it's about trying to do what's right. No one here on this earth is perfect or has all of the answers, regardless of what church they belong to.

 

Yes. I've planned to post something similar all day.

[Zelda]

I'm just interested in how you balance your personal moral convictions with supporting candidates who lie. This can be said for both sides.

 

Everyone defines morality differently. Honesty may not weigh as heavily on some moral scales as others. Or more weight may be given to certain types of honesty than others. I think there are people who are so turned off by the dishonesty inherent in politics that they wash their hands of the whole thing. I think there are some people who are resigned to the idea that true honesty is in short supply in political campaigns because they still want to be part of the process.

 

In the whole campaign, say since January, I think there has been plenty of truth-stretching all around. That said, I think there has been only one really unforgivable lie and that was Obama's campaign painting Bill and Hillary Clinton as racists. I was really looking at him closely up until then. I'm no fan of the Clintons from way back but even I could see how completely unfair that was.

 

That aside, I've let a lot of other things that I don't care for slide and I try to make sure that I don't let it go for my guy and not the other guy...but I'll admit, sometimes I have to really work on being disciplined about it.

[nmoira]

You can't? Not at all? Do you have a different perspective that makes it impossible to grasp another reporter's articles with a more conservative slant?

I assumed "those articles" referred to the articles linked in the first two posts. What you said was: "Those articles aren't worth my consideration. I keep wonder what they leave out." If that's not the case, then my comment doesn't apply; and if it is the case, I stand by it; I don't get why a major NYT article is not even worth consideration. As for the rest, I'm not sure what you're getting at. Politically speaking, I read widely with the exception of campaign materials, which I try to avoid at all costs. Most of my reading it outside the mainstream media, though I don't go to one place for news or seek out solely a perspective similar to my own.

 

When the same facts come out with a different spin, is the different spin like a foreign language that gives you an inability to comphehend the words that would shape the attitude? Did you mistake what I said to mean that I would choose to remain uniformed? Have you chosen to not understand or do you really not understand?

I have to admit that here, I have no clue what you are trying to say. Nowhere have I said that I don't understand that people can legitimately have different experiences, perceptions and value than I do. :001_huh: I'm a grown-up... I get that.

[Phred]

You're right. And they've both lied and crossed the line. But what choices do I have?

 

1 Vote for Obama--I wont vote pro-choice.

2 Vote 3rd party--This is what my dh might do. (I see it as throwing away my vote)

3 Vote for McCain--What I plan to do.

 

As a conservative and one who values a certain moral code, I don't expect perfect adherence to any moral code by anyone. For me, it's about trying to do what's right. No one here on this earth is perfect or has all of the answers, regardless of what church they belong to.

If this is true... then why won't you vote for a pro-choice candidate if they represent you in other areas?

 

For instance... if Obama has a plan for healthcare that would drive down the number of abortions... wouldn't that serve your interests better than someone who just ignores that they happen anyway?

 

Or if Obama brings our troops home from Iraq isn't there a tradeoff between the over 600,000 Iraqi citizens killed in the invasion? Aren't they "life"?

 

I'm just wondering why a woman's choice is more important than a soldier's... in a pro-life stance, doesn't a bullet end a life as surely as an abortion?

 

Obama is a Christian, more of a Christian than McCain if you ask me... so... I don't know how to ask this...

 

Why is "pro-choice" that much of a roadblock? Even if Roe v. Wade is overturned women will still find ways to get abortions. What is it you really want?

[Kimber]

Well, Phred, for me there is a difference between abortion and the other instances you mentioned. Here's why--

 

1. Soldiers have an opportunity to defend themselves. And most of them in our country, at this time all of them, volunteered for the duty they are providing.

 

2. In the case of pro-choice, I feel that the life of the child is just as important as that of the mothers. And while she has the choice to have s@x in most instances, I feel that once life has been established, her body is no longer hers alone. It's weird that women carry babies inside of them when you think about it. But while the body was hers initially, once that child was conceived, he or she should have the right to live also. And the fact that it inconveniences the mother that the child is there is not, IMHO, relevant. The child has the right to live. Very few people seem to care about him or her.

 

Christianity is not a religion about perfection, but rather about sin and the fact that we all commit sins. The bible defines true Christianity as tending to the needs of orphans and widows. That is what being a Christian is about. And as I see it for me, it is my duty and my responsibility to speak up for those who have no voice.

 

On all other issues they, the politicians, are pretty much the same.

[Kimber]

Also Phred, on the issue of how Christians behave, David of the bible was a murderer and an adulterer. Solomon had concubines out of the wazoo. Joseph bragged to the point that his brothers sold him into slavery. Moses too was a murderer. Abraham lied over and over again that his wife was his sister because he was a coward. Paul of the New Testament was one that hunted and persecuted Christians before he became a believer on the road to Damascus.

 

These are our road models. :)

 

Christians are sinners who have been saved by grace. We're not perfect high moral upstanding people. Religion has gotten into people and they tend to wear their Christianity as if were their own doing that has brought to Christ, that has made them better than everyone else.

 

Christianity is about grace and mercy. And we are supposed to try and be perfect, to try and obey, to try through God's grace to be like Christ.

 

So, more than you wanted to know, but that is why I'm pro-choice.

[PariSarah]

I can't begin to understand this attitude.

 

. . . .that people are losing the capacity to differentiate between "spun" journalism and complete bunk, I can absolutely understand the attitude.

 

Their pretense of objectivity has cost news media their collective reputation, especially among that segment of the population that does not agree with the palpable, albeit unstated, prejudgments that underlie the stories as they are presented.

 

The unhappy consequence is that people don't trust them even when they are trying to report responsibly.

 

I generally find NPR to be an acceptable news outlet, but the few times I've heard them report on a situation that I knew a lot about, I've heard enough . . . what would I call it . . . shaping? over-simplification? that I listen with a filter of suspicion. (It probably helps that I share some of the convictions which the reporters and editors there appear to hold.) I'm willing to take "spun" news as the beginning of real information.

 

Besides, there's nothing in journalism school that can correct human nature. There are things I believe so strongly that they color how I see the world, whether or not I notice it. Even though I believe NPR to be sincere in its effort to report news, I don't believe that its reporters or editors are super-human. They are, like all humans, susceptible to the blindness that comes from having opinions and convictions. Refusing to admit that blindness is a mistake, and the consequences of that mistake are precisely such attitudes as the above.

 

I believe there's enough of a difference between "spin" and outright lies that I'm willing to continue to read NYT and listen to NPR and even, on occasion, CNN or Fox. But the suspicion with which I read or listen to them is entirely of their own making.

[Zelda]

Besides, there's nothing in journalism school that can correct human nature. There are things I believe so strongly that they color how I see the world, whether or not I notice it. Even though I believe NPR to be sincere in its effort to report news, I don't believe that its reporters or editors are super-human. They are, like all humans, susceptible to the blindness that comes from having opinions and convictions. Refusing to admit that blindness is a mistake, and the consequences of that mistake are precisely such attitudes as the above.

 

:iagree:

[PariSarah]

. . . not voting for McCain:

 

If this is true... then why won't you vote for a pro-choice candidate if they represent you in other areas?

 

{snip}

 

Why is "pro-choice" that much of a roadblock? Even if Roe v. Wade is overturned women will still find ways to get abortions. What is it you really want?

 

Because I want to live in a society where no human life is expendable: not an inconvenient child's, nor a hardened criminal's, nor a poverty-stricken woman's, nor an enemy combatant's, nor that of an asthmatic resident of the town where everybody wants to put the pollution-dumping factory. Even though I find many points of the Democratic platform to be more responsible or more "christian" than their Republican counterparts, I cannot attach my name to a platform that includes the explicit statement that certain lives are expendable.

 

That generally means that I can't vote at all, because each party seems to want some class of people to be expendable.

 

The difference between a society in which some women get (illegal) abortions and one in which abortion is a protected right is precisely that: the expendability of a certain class of people is enshrined in law, rather than an unfortunate fact of human existence.

[Guest Virginia Dawn]

I agree, as long as all the meat is sniffed and none is out of bounds. But I must say that labelling only one brand of steak with a supposed flaw that all the other brands also have is not truth in advertising. I'm all for consumer awareness, as long as the consumer advocate really has the consumer's best interest in mind. If they practiced looking at all types of meat with the same goal in mind, then I would consider the information noteworthy. It would probably be historic too. ;-)

 

As in everything, of course, let the buyer beware.

[Melinda in VT]

. . . not voting for McCain:

 

 

 

Because I want to live in a society where no human life is expendable: not an inconvenient child's, nor a hardened criminal's, nor a poverty-stricken woman's, nor an enemy combatant's, nor that of an asthmatic resident of the town where everybody wants to put the pollution-dumping factory. Even though I find many points of the Democratic platform to be more responsible or more "christian" than their Republican counterparts, I cannot attach my name to a platform that includes the explicit statement that certain lives are expendable.

 

That generally means that I can't vote at all, because each party seems to want some class of people to be expendable.

 

The difference between a society in which some women get (illegal) abortions and one in which abortion is a protected right is precisely that: the expendability of a certain class of people is enshrined in law, rather than an unfortunate fact of human existence.

 

Great post.

 

My problem with voting for a pro-life candidate in spite of agreeing with the other candidate on almost every other issue is that the candidates have not then done much once in office to promote the pro-life agenda. No progress is made on reducing abortions, and a whole host of other issues are (IMO) much worse than they were before.

 

Also, I've become aware that many pro-lifers want to restrict access to forms of birth control that I think are great and should be used more often. Their extreme views make it difficult for me to vote for them.

[Zelda]

I agree, as long as all the meat is sniffed and none is out of bounds. But I must say that labelling only one brand of steak with a supposed flaw that all the other brands also have is not truth in advertising. I'm all for consumer awareness, as long as the consumer advocate really has the consumer's best interest in mind. If they practiced looking at all types of meat with the same goal in mind, then I would consider the information noteworthy. It would probably be historic too. ;-)

 

As in everything, of course, let the buyer beware.

 

Wait, a second. You guys aren't even really talking about meat are you? :D

 

Good points all around. Even if it were really about meat. My friend died at age 26 from CJD. His mother insists it was really vCJD from meat. The way the CDC swarmed the hospital after his dx certainly didn't help.

 

So, yes, let's be careful about all kinds of meat.

[Jennifer in NH]

But don't you ever feel frustrated at the quality of republicans or democrats we have to choose from. I honestly think many of you would support Palin no matter her actual record is.

 

I think as a country we have to really ask ourselves how low can we go? Who do we really want representing our views and hopes. For me it's no longer good enough that a party or candidate agrees with what I do (for the most part). So how do I work to change this? Can I?

 

Almost...I would be voting for Bob Barr if McCain had chosen Libermann. I hate the lack of quality in our canidates....here in NH our Senator is running reallly wishy washy commercials that make me scream...he is running away from conservatism and I really think because of that he will lose, after all...why would a Democrat vote for a Republican who votes like a Dem...why not vote for the actual democrat...and why would Republicans go vote for him when he votes as if he is a dem...okay, rambling and off topic...

as for how to fix it..I'm at a loss...I don't want to vote third party yet....I was thinking about it over the summer but came to the conclusion that it wasn't yet an option for me....for the record I usually vote for who I want on the Supreme Court....I haven't been thrilled wish Bush, but he did exactly what I wanted him to do in getting Alito and Roberts on the Court (albeit, after that fiasco with Harriet Myers)....

 

By the way, I am enjoying this thread...it is interesting how differently we all think....I'm only up to page 4 so far, but the can't be too bad...it hasn't been closed yet!;)

Jenny

[Sammy]

The New York Times is well-known for biases in its reporting. I agree with sarahli, though. I won't decide based on *any* reporting; instead, I will trust my own research and perception.

[Sammy]

If this is true... then why won't you vote for a pro-choice candidate if they represent you in other areas?

 

For instance... if Obama has a plan for healthcare that would drive down the number of abortions... wouldn't that serve your interests better than someone who just ignores that they happen anyway?

 

Or if Obama brings our troops home from Iraq isn't there a tradeoff between the over 600,000 Iraqi citizens killed in the invasion? Aren't they "life"?

 

I'm just wondering why a woman's choice is more important than a soldier's... in a pro-life stance, doesn't a bullet end a life as surely as an abortion?

 

Obama is a Christian, more of a Christian than McCain if you ask me... so... I don't know how to ask this...

 

Why is "pro-choice" that much of a roadblock? Even if Roe v. Wade is overturned women will still find ways to get abortions. What is it you really want?

 

Excellent points, Phred.

[Mom to Aly]

. . . not voting for McCain:

 

 

 

Because I want to live in a society where no human life is expendable: not an inconvenient child's, nor a hardened criminal's, nor a poverty-stricken woman's, nor an enemy combatant's, nor that of an asthmatic resident of the town where everybody wants to put the pollution-dumping factory. Even though I find many points of the Democratic platform to be more responsible or more "christian" than their Republican counterparts, I cannot attach my name to a platform that includes the explicit statement that certain lives are expendable.

 

That generally means that I can't vote at all, because each party seems to want some class of people to be expendable.

 

The difference between a society in which some women get (illegal) abortions and one in which abortion is a protected right is precisely that: the expendability of a certain class of people is enshrined in law, rather than an unfortunate fact of human existence.

 

 

Not "enshrining" the right to choose in law would result in what used to happen, but at a higher rate--women, and girls, going to back alley people, or trying to abort themselves, and we would see them dying, or having fetuses with serious, permanent injuries. Or they would travel to other countries, Canada, Mexico, Europe, etc, that allowed abortions. Or get the "abortion pill" illegally, or take too many birth control pills--while they were still legal. Because, as was mentioned, many people who are against abortion are also against many forms of birth control--will that be the next thing to be outlawed? What about making it illegal to have sex if you are not married? There are proponents of that as well.

 

I actually do think abortion is wrong, but I also do not believe I have the right to tell another woman what to do with her body--I don't think anyone does, in the early stages of pregnancy. And when you look at statistics, they show that most women who have abortions would not have given the child up for adoption if they had been forced to keep them. If you look at the number of abused children already out there, in homes where the mothers are incapable of dealing with them, can you imagine what it would be like for a mother who doesn't want the child and is forced to have it, but won't give it up?

 

I do have another question--why are so many people who are against abortion for the death penalty? You are saying no one has the right to take a life except God--and then you are saying we are going to take someone's life--how can you think that is right? That is one I have never understood.

 

And, yes, PariSarah, I agree, it is complete hypocrisy for someone to be anti-abortion but then be for the death penalty, be pro-war, be for polluting factories, not care about the Greenhouse Effect or Global Warming, not care about what we are doing to our planet and animals, because, yes, they also have worth, not care about the homeless, because, yes, they also have worth, etc. One life is not worth more than another, no matter how rich or poor, how educated or not, how democratic or republican. Although I don't think everyone can see that quite as clearly at the moment.

[nmoira]

 

The New York Times is well-known for biases in its reporting. I agree with sarahli, though. I won't decide based on *any* reporting; instead, I will trust my own research and perception.

True. Those of us who watched horrified as Judith Miller helped spin the Iraq War into reality, marching lock-step with the Bush administration and their favored source of "intelligence," Ahmed Chalibi, would agree. :)

[Slartibartfast]

I read a New York Times article that was on msnbc.com tonight about Gov. Sarah Palin. Here is the article:

 

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/26691018/

 

I am curious how other people view Palin after reading this. Did it change your opinion of her? Did it reinforce your current opinion of her? Do you view this article as just another attack by the media? I am looking for a serious discussion not a flame war. Thanks. :001_smile:

 

I am just quoting the OP so people remember what the thread is actually about. :)

 

 

And I do believe the whole polar bear thing has been debunked.

 

That is interesting I haven't actually read much about the polar bear issue and the article linked in the OP concerns me. I am a huge bleeding heart over animals that could eat me in one bite.

 

Could you provide a citation for the debunking of the polar bear thing so I can read it for my information??

 

Thanks. :)

[Kimber]

And, yes, PariSarah, I agree, it is complete hypocrisy for someone to be anti-abortion but then be for the death penalty, be pro-war, be for polluting factories, not care about the Greenhouse Effect or Global Warming, not care about what we are doing to our planet and animals, because, yes, they also have worth, not care about the homeless, because, yes, they also have worth, etc. One life is not worth more than another, no matter how rich or poor, how educated or not, how democratic or republican. Although I don't think everyone can see that quite as clearly at the moment.

 

Is the assumption in this statement, that pro-lifers don't care about the things mentioned here. Or maybe you mean the Republican party? Either way, I disagree on both counts. Simply because I believe the government should not be the one to implement social aid, does not mean that I don't believe that social aid should be given. It just means that I am willing give from my own pocket rather than giving from yours via taxes.

 

My dh and I have this conversation all of the time about his siblings. They're big time liberals and want the government to be responsible for social welfare. They themselves aren't willing to do it.

 

And about abortions, it always confuses me when people bring up the fact that if women aren't allowed to have abortions they will do it illegally and may die from it. This is what I read when I read those kind of statements. Because I believe that abortion = murder.

 

I actually do think murder is wrong, but I also do not believe I have the right to tell another woman what to do with her body(I can't tell her not to commit murder)--I don't think anyone does, in the early stages of pregnancy.

 

And I don't at all find it hypocrisy to be pro-war, because those actions are brought on by people themselves. They made the choice to go to war. All of these actions committed by people of their free will differs completely from the action committed against an innocent child.

 

I don't think death is the big bad monster that we have to protect everyone from. If someone murders a group of school children, then he made a choice to commit a crime and suffer the consequences of that crime. He knew or should have known that the death penalty was a possible consequence to his actions. But what chance did the child have? What action did he or she take other than try to grow? Who did the child hurt that punishment of the death penalty is warranted? No one.

 

 

If you look at the number of abused children already out there, in homes where the mothers are incapable of dealing with them, can you imagine what it would be like for a mother who doesn't want the child and is forced to have it, but won't give it up?

 

Again, I read this as rather than have you suffer at the hands of a mother than might not love you, death is better for you. Or rather than having the mother suffer because she didn't want you, death is better for you.

 

*Mom, I know that the way I reworded the sentences isn't how you meant it. But in my mind, that's what those statements mean. As a pro-life person, those arguments have no impact.

[ma23peas]

Because, as was mentioned, many people who are against abortion are also against many forms of birth control--will that be the next thing to be outlawed? What about making it illegal to have sex if you are not married? There are proponents of that as well.

 

I do have another question--why are so many people who are against abortion for the death penalty? You are saying no one has the right to take a life except God--and then you are saying we are going to take someone's life--how can you think that is right? That is one I have never understood.

 

 

 

I don't think the word 'many' here can be backed up with any sort of data...many implies it's possibly the majority...absolutely not. So be careful with your words. If Roe v. Wade is overturned then all it does is leave the responsibility of making that decision up to the state where YOUR vote WILL be heard, not some judge in a supreme court making it for you. So, I could easily see some states passing abortion laws and others not, THEN you would have a choice of where you'd like to live if it's that important for you to have the freedom to have an abortion. I think that is the most fair outcome...here, the goverment has said ALL states must allow abortions when that is NOT the will of the people.

 

To answer your question, the infant inside that womb, some who would have lived outside post abortion..had NO choice in ending their life. The folks on death row had MANY choices in their lifetime, one of which was the willfulness to commit murder... John Wayne Gacy, Ted Bundy, you read where one of your children or nephews/nieces was an innocent victim of horrible abuses and then reconsider the death penalty...the death penalty is reserved for the most vile of offenders...our prisons are overcrowded and the cost of keeping a Ted Bundy alive for 50 years is money I'd rather give to his victims.

 

Tara

[Slartibartfast]

I read a New York Times article that was on msnbc.com tonight about Gov. Sarah Palin. Here is the article:

 

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/26691018/

 

I am curious how other people view Palin after reading this. Did it change your opinion of her? Did it reinforce your current opinion of her? Do you view this article as just another attack by the media? I am looking for a serious discussion not a flame war. Thanks. :001_smile:

 

 

I also found this interesting

 

In the middle of the primary, a conservative columnist in the state, Paul Jenkins, unearthed e-mail messages showing that Ms. Palin had conducted campaign business from the mayor’s office. Ms. Palin handled the crisis with a street fighter’s guile. “I told her it looks like she did the same thing that Randy Ruedrich did,” Mr. Jenkins recalled. “And she said, ‘Yeah, what I did was wrong.’ ”

Mr. Jenkins hung up and decided to forgo writing about it. His phone rang soon after.

Mr. Jenkins said a reporter from Fairbanks, reading from a Palin news release, demanded to know why he was “smearing” her. “Now I look at her and think: ‘Man, you’re slick,’ ” he said.

Hm...so really the same things she accused others of doing, she herself did.

 

 

That's not very nice.

[TXMomof4]

Not "enshrining" the right to choose in law would result in what used to happen, but at a higher rate--women, and girls, going to back alley people, or trying to abort themselves, and we would see them dying, or having fetuses with serious, permanent injuries. Or they would travel to other countries, Canada, Mexico, Europe, etc, that allowed abortions. Or get the "abortion pill" illegally, or take too many birth control pills--while they were still legal. Because, as was mentioned, many people who are against abortion are also against many forms of birth control--will that be the next thing to be outlawed? What about making it illegal to have sex if you are not married? There are proponents of that as well.

 

I actually do think abortion is wrong, but I also do not believe I have the right to tell another woman what to do with her body--I don't think anyone does, in the early stages of pregnancy. And when you look at statistics, they show that most women who have abortions would not have given the child up for adoption if they had been forced to keep them. If you look at the number of abused children already out there, in homes where the mothers are incapable of dealing with them, can you imagine what it would be like for a mother who doesn't want the child and is forced to have it, but won't give it up?

 

I do have another question--why are so many people who are against abortion for the death penalty? You are saying no one has the right to take a life except God--and then you are saying we are going to take someone's life--how can you think that is right? That is one I have never understood.

 

And, yes, PariSarah, I agree, it is complete hypocrisy for someone to be anti-abortion but then be for the death penalty, be pro-war, be for polluting factories, not care about the Greenhouse Effect or Global Warming, not care about what we are doing to our planet and animals, because, yes, they also have worth, not care about the homeless, because, yes, they also have worth, etc. One life is not worth more than another, no matter how rich or poor, how educated or not, how democratic or republican. Although I don't think everyone can see that quite as clearly at the moment.

 

 

Equating abortion with the death penalty isn't an accurate comparison in my book. No one has the right to take an innocent life. Period. You want to talk about a slippery slope.....(and I don't believe this could happen, but if were talking slippery slopes) the down syndrome babies that are aborted 90% of the time - what if the mom didn't have her AFP test done and didn't know the baby was DS. Why not move from late term abortion, to just not letting those babies live. If they can be aborted in the last trimester, why not move it to one week later? How about the elderly who are about to die, why not just move it up a week?

 

It is the lack of respect for *innocent* life that defines abortion.

 

In the case of the death penalty, a person has knowingly chosen to harm another individual in a grievous way. In a capital murder trial it should be proven that the individual was capable of his/her decisions and chose to cause the death of another person. Not quite the same thing as an abortion.

 

Also, this is just a little sidenote, I was listening to a local radio show here and the host was talking about abortion. He said that if Roe v. Wade was overturned, all it would do would be to put the issue of abortion back on the state level. It wouldn't outlaw abortion, just give the decisions about abortion laws back to the states. Any thoughts on that?