|
On October 02 2008 23:10 Flaccid wrote:
ogawd, VP debate tonight. So excited.
I really hope Biden ignores Palin completely. He has nothing to gain by making her look dumb(er) or insulting her. The point is made: She has no place in a federal election.
Biden needs to concentrate on attacking McCain and just pointing out the falsehoods likely to be present in some of Palin's nonsensical ramblings.
So true, she doesnt need anyone to set her on fire, shes already burning.
The problem is, the McCain camp are trying to make her some kind of martyr, in a really weird way, like "shes being attacked because shes really dumb and unfit, thereof she connects even more with you joe sixpacks, VOTE FOR MCCAIN!" Its like putting Joan D'Arc on the fire, to gain with her loss
|
Is there a stream on the web where you can see the debate live? It's bound to be so funny..
Honestly I am just amazed by the interviews Palin gave.. How can this be a reality? How can this be the VP nominee of the US?? It's like a very weird dream or a parody on politics...
|
On October 02 2008 23:57 Locke. wrote:
Is there a stream on the web where you can see the debate live? It's bound to be so funny..
There are several places, but CNN usually has a solid stream.
|
Can anyone tell me what time is the debate ? its 12:19AM here (noon) and I cant find it.
|
|
|
17079 Posts
Something that just occurred to me: wouldn't a press conference held by Palin just be hilarious?
|
On October 02 2008 12:53 Jibba wrote:
The states should have the right to decide you have private rights, not the federal government!
So if you "commit" abortion in one state, then move back to AK where it's illegal, are you then charged with a crime? Because the Full Faith and Credit clause would bitch slap that case and then weeeeeeeeee, we're back to dead fetii for everybody!
To be fair, in regards to the other landmark case everyone in America should know, she probably agrees with the Dredd Scott ruling.
No. Many states have laws setting up different business taxes and regulations. That doesn't mean that if someone from a business operating in another state comes to your state, you can arrest them.
The idea that if you "commit" abortion in one state, that another state could punish it was not well thought out or serious.
Abortion should be decided states. The courts can take the constitution and stretch it so far to try to create a right to abortion, but all the while, they ignore the ENTIRE 10th amendment which reads,
"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."
Its also amazing to me that people (liberals on the court), feel comfortable stretching the constitution to its limit by creating the right to abortion but can't reach far enough to believe that,
"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."
..could actually mean that the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
|
so lately the pundits opinion has actually been swinging back in favor of Palin in this debate. she's the queen of the "non-answer" apparently.
can't wait to see this. both obama and mccain were good speakers and by this time had been coached well enough that we didn't see any serious gaffes. but man oh man is tonight gonna be full of material from both sides. woooootttttt
|
United States22883 Posts
Of course the idea was facetious, but certain states would simply become abortion states and people would go there for the procedure. Then you and the rightwing morons that you support would demand that it be made a federal matter because your will wasn't being respected.
Roe v. Wade stands because women have a fundamental right to regulate their own body and to strike that down would violate the 14th amendment. Now you come back and say "but they're committing murder!" or "it's not just her body" except that science disagrees with you and the killing of potential is not a crime, otherwise I would have a lifetime sentence for the 98,000,000 sperm I kill each day.
Your understanding of the second amendment is also horribly flawed. Luckily rpf is banned or this would get a lot more painful, but you are not part of a well regulated militia, unless you've served on the National Guard. It's also funny because the right has been arguing that Palin served as executive of a military force BECAUSE the National Guard is a state body, yet they argue that it's a federal body when it gets brought up in the 2nd Amendment debates.
The left are a bunch of hypocrites and the right are a bunch of hypocrites. You're all in favor of state rights when it gives you the opportunity to negate people's rights.
|
On October 03 2008 04:31 ahrara_ wrote:
so lately the pundits opinion has actually been swinging back in favor of Palin in this debate. she's the queen of the "non-answer" apparently.
can't wait to see this. both obama and mccain were good speakers and by this time had been coached well enough that we didn't see any serious gaffes. but man oh man is tonight gonna be full of material from both sides. woooootttttt
The best way to hurt someone in politics is to raise expectations of their performance so if the media pundits don't like her, this would be the best way to hurt her.
I don't know if that is the case now, but it should be remembered.
|
On October 03 2008 04:43 Jibba wrote:
Now you come back and say "but they're committing murder!" or "it's not just her body" except that science disagrees with you
I'm a medical student so I am interested in knowing what "science" you are talking about when you say that baby is part of the mother's body.
I have my own thoughts on this that I will give you after you respond.
|
on second thought this was just a stupid thing to say
|
|
|
Hm Savio I am curious about one thing, do you actually believe that the US ecconomy will do better under Mccain? or do you support him for other reasons, like above mentioned abortion debate.
|
United States22883 Posts
On October 03 2008 04:46 Savio wrote:Show nested quote +On October 03 2008 04:43 Jibba wrote:
Now you come back and say "but they're committing murder!" or "it's not just her body" except that science disagrees with you
I'm a medical student so I am interested in knowing what "science" you are talking about when you say that baby is part of the mother's body. I have my own thoughts on this that I will give you after you respond. Fetii lack a number of things inherent in human beings. That's partially a philosophical distinction, but you can also make one based on brain development and even the Catholic Church at one point allowed abortions until quickening.
How about rape and incest? You can't possibly be a believer in right to life while still allowing abortion in those cases.
All of this gets me back to my earlier point about you. THESE ISSUES ARE FUCKING BULLSHIT. The US became one of the least popular countries in the world and our debt hemorrhaged under Bush (about a 14 trillion dollar swing of where we were expected at the beginning of his term.) These are fucking important problems, and you're probably going to say "money isn't everything", but then when it comes to the free market vs. social programs, it will be everything.
|
United States22883 Posts
On October 03 2008 04:55 KlaCkoN wrote:
Hm Savio I am curious about one thing, do you actually believe that the US ecconomy will do better under Mccain? or do you support him for other reasons, like above mentioned abortion debate.
He doesn't care. He already said the three main issues directing his vote are:
1. Abortion
2. Gay Marriage
3. Gun control
Holy FUCK
|
On October 02 2008 20:31 MyLostTemple wrote:
does anyone else get incredibly anxious watching these palin videos? it's almost unbearable. sometimes i have to pause during her answers half way through and just digest that she's actually this incompetent. by the way Where do i goto pick up an absentee ballot in korea? help plz
http://www.votefromabroad.org/?adid=3DKEVC9990000092001
|
But unless I have missunderstood something both candidates are for abortion, gay marriage are beeing decided on the states level (didnt cali allow it recently?, and no president in the US would ever move for more gun control?
:S
|
United States22883 Posts
On October 03 2008 05:04 KlaCkoN wrote:
But unless I have missunderstood something both candidates are for abortion, gay marriage are beeing decided on the states level (didnt cali allow it recently?, and no president in the US would ever move for more gun control?
:S
Ah, but my friend, you are using logic! Savio supposes that Presidents have the ability to appoint judges, thus they should appoint judges based on their own political agenda, even though judges only decide on constitutionality, not legislative worthiness. He fails to understand that appointing a judge for said reason only means you are tampering with the checks and balances of government and you're setting yourself up for a let down when a winning opponent chooses the same tactic.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
