media lying about Sarah Palin to discredit her

[Amethyst Hunter]

overall, he's [Obama] got a mostly reasonable and well thought out, lawyerly view on gun ownership as far as I can tell. Yes, it's not what the NRA would like to hear, but it's not out and out anti-gun, just anti-gun where people are not using guns appropriately like in larger urban centers where they're used violently.

This is a (bafflingly, IMO) major concern for my dad, who right now is leaning towards Obama but is for some reason worried that All The Guns In The World Are Doomed. (He shoots targets for sport and used to hunt bird-game in his younger days. Personally, I think some of his more rather...passionate...gun-nut friends are filling his head with all sorts of scare tales about mass bans or such - one guy he knows has a literal *armory* in his basement, complete with reinforced walls and survival meals.)

I told him today that 1) there are WAY more bigger issues at stake here than whether or not someone can buy an AK-47, and 2) ALL politicians trot out the anti-gun theme because they know it scores points with those who want to see a 'tougher' stance on crime. No politician, right or left, would seriously consider taking away all guns because it'd be the kiss of death for his career; there'd be a mass uprising even by peace activists in about .2 seconds if such a thing were ever to occur. (Like I told my dad, "If by some weird warping of reality they did try to come for your guns, you can just give them to 'em - barrel first." ) I myself am all for the Second Amendment, and I don't buy the "all ur guns r belong 2 us" fear - like you said, it's more about inappropriate use.

As my mom (also for Obama) pointed out, the real problem is more with the black market than anything else. Clamp down on the criminal cartels, the influx of guns will inevitably slow. That, coupled with proper gun safety education and stopping the glorification of guns as Problem-Solvers (how many Hollywood movies have we seen where the Hero just picks up a gun and poses looking all cool and stuff after blowing somebody away - I don't think it's right to blame Hollywood exclusively for violence, but they also aren't helping to solve the problem, and that's where we as citizens come into play - we pay for their product, they put out more of the same because they're following our demand. Stop buying their stuff, they'll have to alter what they put out), will do a long way towards teaching people that guns are serious business to be treated with respect.

[AdminAssistant]

(how many Hollywood movies have we seen where the Hero just picks up a gun and poses looking all cool and stuff after blowing somebody away - I don't think it's right to blame Hollywood exclusively for violence, but they also aren't helping to solve the problem

It's not Hollywood's responsibility to solve the problem.

I'll start a separate thread on this so as to not threadjack, though.

[SuperB]

Abstinence is indeed the only 100% effective way; however, your second statement looks pretty condescending and callous towards those females who never even had a choice in whether or not they became sexually active (aka rape victims). Palin is *on record* as stating that she opposes abortion rights for even rape victims. Frankly, whether or not you personally consider abortion a sin, or not, I have ZERO respect for anyone who thinks a rape victim should suffer a second indignity against her person by being forced to bear and/or raise the product of her violation against her will. (Yes, some women do this of their own will, but that's the key: it *must* be her choice and hers alone, without pressure or guilt-tripping or anything along those lines. And given the scare tactics and likely dominionist-recruiting schemes employed by PCCs (Pregnancy Crisis Centers) I would *not* be willing to trust that some kind of brainwashing is going on there should such a victim be unfortunate enough to find herself in such a place)

TBC...

I still see no proof that Palin herself is involved in the group. She left that Church but people refuse to mention that fact.

As to the above, Palin said that for herself, she would choose life. That was the question. And she did not say she was anti-contraception. She said she was against sex-explicit education. Not against a discussion of contraception. There's a difference, I know, I'm involved in the school board. We have age appropriate sex ed which includes teaching abstinence.

Part of my point is that people are making huge assumptions based on little information. You for example, you make the assumption that I'm callous and condescending towards rape victims. But I've been there. I've had to consider that possibility if I ended up pregnant after an attack and I made the decision that if I were, I could not terminate a child. Luckily I wasn't. Even though I'm pro-life I only agree with abortion for rape/incest/life of the mother. The words "pro-life" doesn't cover it though. Where I stand against abortion is the way it's used for birth control. That's actually pretty much the norm for most pro-lifers. If two people have sex they should accept the risks.
Palin saying she would choose life was a personal decision, as was mine, but to listen to her detractors they make it appear as if she flat out stated she would take that choice from rape victims. She didn't.

Now, with those out of the way, let's look at Obama's former pastor, the notorious Wright, for comparison, since you saw fit to throw that in there as bait.

The only 'bait' intended was to point out the hypocrisy of those digging for anything they can use against Palin. A church she left does not link her to a group that shouldn't exist any more than Jeremiah Wright speaks for Obama. I'm sorry I didn't make that point more clear. I disagreed with everyone who tried to discredit Obama based on Wrights own words. Palin deserves the same. I'll look through the links when I have more time but I've seen many of them already from the looks of it. Lots of discussion on a church she left but no evidence that she herself was part of that group.
And they still have not shown proof that she banned any books or that there was any more to the question.

I'm looking forward to her interview tonight but I'm wondering if most will even hear her for listening for something they can magnify out of proportion.

[anriana]

The main thing I'm noticing is how the GOP is trying to frame any criticism of Palin into a "OMG YOU BASHED A WOMAN, YOU MUST APOLOGIZE NOW!" contest.

I mean, aren't Republicans the ones who are usually telling folks to get a thicker skin? It's been amusing seeing McCain's campaign staff acting like toddlers running to mommy because someone was mean.

http://www.thedailyshow.com/video/in...in-gender-card

I think you'll enjoy this video. It's clips of Republican talking heads saying Hillary has a thin skin/is playing the victim card and then saying the complete opposite for Palin.

[Amethyst Hunter]

I still see no proof that Palin herself is involved in the group. She left that Church but people refuse to mention that fact.

So she says. I can't help you there, but personally, I wouldn't trust that woman any further than I could throw her, given what I've seen. Dominionists/friendlies are VERY good at concealing their tracks (though it is good to see more and more of them being exposed) for a long time. Hardly anyone had heard of dominionism back in 2000, or even 2004 - now thanks to the current bunch, it's getting the much-needed attention it deserves (and still needs even more of, this crap is so deeply embedded...).

Where I stand against abortion is the way it's used for birth control. That's actually pretty much the norm for most pro-lifers. If two people have sex they should accept the risks.

Palin saying she would choose life was a personal decision, as was mine, but to listen to her detractors they make it appear as if she flat out stated she would take that choice from rape victims. She didn't.

Yet. Remember, we'll have ample opportunity in the next 4 years to replace a couple of Supreme Court Justices. And Roe v. Wade is already hotly contested by those who would gladly take away *all* right to choose - including that of contraception. McCain openly said his administration would be a "pro-life" one (read: continuing the restrictive Bush policies), and while he might be a tiny, tiny smidgen of moderate (which I'm inclined to doubt), his running mate most definitely fits the bill of repression given her background.

All the hardcore right-wings have come out of the woodwork and are salivating at the chance to tighten the pressure on women even more than it already is - we have people who believe pharmacists and doctors should be allowed to discriminate against anyone they choose, just because they may disagree with someone's personal life. Why aren't they doing this to men who want Viagra? Why aren't they doing it to their own because they think disease is God's punishment on anyone who is sick? Because this is open war on all women, a goal explicitly stated by the dominionists. Allowing a woman to control when, how, or even if she will have children means that woman has control of her own destiny, and these people won't allow that. They literally believe that all women are inferior, second-class citizens, no better than property for men and must therefore be controlled - and denying them reproductive freedom by cutting off access to medical care/services is just one step on that road to total enslavement.

One of the most common false assumptions being spread is that abortion is being used en masse as a primary form of birth control. That's wrong. Maybe there are a very, very few women who do this (and I disagree with it too myself), but by and large this is not the norm and the statistics bear that out. Most women definitely prefer to *avoid* getting to that point if they can help it. Hell, I've told friends that if I ever met a guy I'd seriously consider for a long-term relationship (unlikely at this point), there's *no* way I'm ever having sex with him unless the both of us are sterilized, I'm (still) on my pill (currently take it for an irregular cycle) and he's got a condom, that's how much I don't want any unpleasant surprises.

The vast majority of abortions stem from BC failure (i.e., condom breaks, pill goes wonky) or lack of any BC at all (especially for poorer women in rural areas, who may not be able to get to a clinic that offers these services), which is why educating people about it is so important (yes, sadly, we still have people in this day and age who believe those chestnuts about "if he pulls out you're safe"). Abstinence may be the preferred ideal for certain age groups (aka teens) and that's fine, but it's unrealistic to expect that every teenager on earth is going to stay abstinent indefinitely unless we can figure out a way to encourage such (and *not* through fearmongering or threats - most people don't respond very well to that type of 'motivation', least of all teenagers).

The statement "if two people have sex they should accept the risks" is rather loaded. Most sensible folk already know how people get made and do take proper precautions; should they be punished if they wind up on the losing end of the deal? What if a married couple (and obviously it'd be tough to find anybody who disapproves of sex within marriage, except for maybe those diehard nuts who think it's strictly for procreation and somehow spousal enjoyment is 'bad') has chosen not to have any kids at all, or limit the size of their family, and they have sex and that little stick turns the wrong color? Should they be forced to take on a burden they may not want or be able to afford? (and that includes the whole 9 yards, so to speak) I don't think so. Nobody is entitled to anything from another person's body.

I don't trust Palin one bit to exercise any common sense when addressing solutions for lowering the abortion rate and improving contraception success/access. It's pretty clear the abstinence-only agenda failed her daughter (who, unlike most women, will have plenty of access to whatever resources she needs - for the vast majority of females, teen pregnancy is a fast road to poverty ruin**).

they still have not shown proof that she banned any books or that there was any more to the question.

Snopes already pointed this out in one of the previously-mentioned links (also proving false that there was ever a 'hit list' of books to be banned) - she may not have actually banned any books, but it's clear enough that she *was* asking about a hypothetical situation related to book-banning, which should be worrisome enough, as any librarian will doubtless say. Worse, she obviously got pissy when the people she questioned told her they would under no circumstances back her if she ever did decide to pose any bans, and she wielded enough power at the time to try to threaten them into compliance. That right there marks her as a bully - and if there's one thing on this earth that I truly despise above all else, one thing that I hate and loathe with the fire of infinite sunlight, it's bullies. We've had 8 years of bullies, that's more than enough.

I'm looking forward to her interview tonight but I'm wondering if most will even hear her for listening for something they can magnify out of proportion.

Would you classify the threat of war with RUSSIA as being out of proportion? That's pretty damn serious, and it came straight from Palin's mouth (see below link). Especially given that the dominionists have always painted Russia as one of the Big Enemies in their fantasy End-Times War that they're spoiling for (one reason why they're so eager to go screw up the Middle East some more).

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/7611625.stm - BBC report on the interview, and the words:

Asked whether her support for Georgian membership of Nato meant that the US would have to go to war if Russia again invaded Georgia, Mrs Palin said that was a possibility.

"Perhaps so. I mean, that is the agreement when you are a Nato ally, if another country is attacked, you're going to be expected to be called upon and help."

That's not something to take lightly at ALL. Russia's already accused the US of provoking something in Georgia - there may or may not have been US citizens in the region at the time of ongoing conflict; reports on this vary - and given that there are increasing reports of dominionist activity *overseas* in nations like Russia, this is very suspect indeed. Handling Russia's new evolution is going to be a very tricky task, and I want somebody who's going to use their bloody head, stay calm and not provoke all-out warfare - which frankly, I fully see Palin and McCain as capable of doing (McCain is known for his infamous temper tantrums).

Incidentally, here's some food for thought: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/7606100.stm - according to this BBC poll, 22 nations *overwhelmingly* prefer Obama to be the next President and think that international relations under an Obama administration would improve.

In 17 countries, the most common view was that US relations with the rest of the world would improve under Mr Obama.

If Republican Mr McCain were elected, the most common view was that relations would remain about the same. (Which is to say, still pretty crappy considering Bush II's damage)

And Americans are agreeing:

The US public was polled separately and Americans also believed an Obama presidency would improve US ties with the world more than a McCain presidency.

I think that's pretty telling.




** = Yes, I know that there are some folks on here that were pregnant as teenagers and that comment was not directed at them. There's still no denying the fact that it is *much* harder to deal with life in general as a teen mom, as opposed to waiting until one is better-prepared to take on that kind of stress. There's a reason poverty runs in family cycles where reproductive control is restricted or limited.

[Boozy]

Asked whether her support for Georgian membership of Nato meant that the US would have to go to war if Russia again invaded Georgia, Mrs Palin said that was a possibility.

"Perhaps so. I mean, that is the agreement when you are a Nato ally, if another country is attacked, you're going to be expected to be called upon and help."

NATO is a military alliance. The entire point of which is that if one member nation is attacked, the alliance responds as though every member nation was attacked. While it does not necessarily mean automatic war, it has to be on the table. Many NATO members support full membership for Georgia.

There are two trains of thought: One is that Russia will be needlessly antagonized if Georgia joins NATO, and the conflict will be renewed. NATO would then be forced to become involved. Others think that if Georgia has NATO's backing, Russia would be more willing to discuss diplomatic solutions. Because Putin (oops, I mean Medvedev) has been so inscrutable, its hard to say which camp is in the right. It's a tense and complicated situation.

I'm no fan of Palin, but I don't think she should necessarily to judged harshly on this particular issue, especially when many nations with moderate and secular governments agree with her.

[IDrinkaRum]

Did anyone watch the interview with Palin by Charles Gibson? From what I understand, it was heavily edited for television. If you want to get a complete understanding of her answers, you'd have to go to the ABC website and find the transcript. You'll be shocked & amazed by what was left out.

When I realized the amount of editing done, I was disgusted.

[Greenday]

Did anyone watch the interview with Palin by Charles Gibson? From what I understand, it was heavily edited for television. If you want to get a complete understanding of her answers, you'd have to go to the ABC website and find the transcript. You'll be shocked & amazed by what was left out.

When I realized the amount of editing done, I was disgusted.

Disgusted that ABC portrayed her as a horrid witch? Or disgusted as ABC edited out the bad stuff? I didn't watch.

[IDrinkaRum]

Disgusted that they edited out stuff that made her answers to Mr. Gibson's questions much more different than they really were.

From what I understand (I didn't watch it either), they edited out some really good stuff from her answers.

As for making her look like a witch? With enough editing, any one can look like the Anti-Christ or witch or whatever else the media want you to look like.

[SuperB]

They edited it alright:
http://marklevinshow.com/gibson-interview/ And pulled a Michael Moore in the process. Watching the headlines now, they're claiming she's stated we may need to go to war with Russia. That she's open to it. What they edited out was this:

PALIN: What I think is that smaller democratic countries that are invaded by a larger power is something for us to be vigilant against. We have got to be cognizant of what the consequences are if a larger power is able to take over smaller democratic countries.

And we have got to be vigilant. We have got to show the support, in this case, for Georgia. The support that we can show is economic sanctions perhaps against Russia, if this is what it leads to.

It doesn’t have to lead to war and it doesn’t have to lead, as I said, to a Cold War, but economic sanctions, diplomatic pressure, again, counting on our allies to help us do that in this mission of keeping our eye on Russia and Putin and some of his desire to control and to control much more than smaller democratic countries.

[AdminAssistant]

The support that we can show is economic sanctions perhaps against Russia, if this is what it leads to.

Which will only affect Russia's poorest citizens. Of course, Putin was elected...

One of my professors has studied Russian/Soviet theatre extensively and made many trips to the Soviet Union (she switched her research in the 1990's to American theatre). She has a true love of the Russian people - she literally wept in class one day, talking about Putin and how bad things were getting.

I'm not saying that he's not somebody that we need to have a close eye on. But Russia is certainly not our problem alone, and this is something that America needs to work on through the United Nations.

[BlaqueKatt]

She also seems pretty ill-prepared for a job the size of Vice President. The town I live in is bigger than the town she ran, and I sure as hell wouldn't want my Mayor running for any federal office.

population of the STATE SHE IS GOVERNOR of(yes she was a mayor but she is currently a sitting governor of an entire state)
670,053 as of 2006 census


Population of Delaware(where Joe Biden Obama's running mate is from)

853,476 as of 2006 census

And they've already foiled one assassination attempt against Obama just before the DNC-sadly with the was some people in this country are-I doubt it will be the last

[CancelMyService]

The difference of course is that Biden's had tons more experience as a Senator (which is just a tad more involved than being a Governor).

All the complaining about the media can't hide the fact that McCain made a desperation move to pick a woman VP, and in doing so he has someone woefully under experienced for any national level job theoretically a heartbeat away from leading the free world.

That doesn't even take into account all the scary extreme right views she held for so long and is only now trying to back away from now that people are paying attention.


Seriously, what has McCain/Palin brought to the table to make anyone want to have them in charge? McCain's "OMG I'M A MAVERICK~!" shtick? Which, if I recall, was a creation of the evil MEDIA whenever he was running against W back in 2000? All he's done is vote with Bush when it matters and vote against him when there was no chance of the bill losing so he can keep his "street cred" as someone sticking it to the GOP. What else is there? Palin's "gun toting MILF hockey mom" routine? They are bringing literally nothing to the table other than the same tired old "liberals will tax and spend" BS.

It's especially hilarious that all of a sudden McCain's suddenly going around promoting change after scoffing at Obama carrying the same mantra for months. I guess he's figuring it out that most people really don't want another 4 years of gross incompetence and free handouts to billionaires.

[BlaqueKatt]

The difference of course is that Biden's had tons more experience as a Senator (which is just a tad more involved than being a Governor).

All the complaining about the media can't hide the fact that McCain made a desperation move to pick a woman VP, and in doing so he has someone woefully under experienced for any national level job theoretically a heartbeat away from leading the free world.

um remember A lovely president we had by the name of Theodore Roosevelt?
He was picked as VP with only 2 terms as a governor-wow he needed more experiance-good to know.

From this website

1882-1884 Served in New York State Assembly.(age 23 to 25)

Dec. 31, 1898 - Dec. 31, 1900 Governor of New York.

March 4-
Sept. 14, 1901 Vice President of the United States.

September 14, 1901 At age 42, Roosevelt becomes the 26th President of the United States and is sworn into office at about 3:15 p.m. at the Ansley Wilcox Mansion


3 years in the state assembly and two years as governor-that was the entirety of his political experience-sad that by today's standards one of the greatest presidents we have ever had in this country wouldn't even have a chance due to being "too inexperienced"

[CancelMyService]

Wow those strawmen are taking quite the pounding, I'm sure being a Governor of what was still one of the largest populated states 100+ years ago matches up exactly with being a Governor today.

This is what kills me with conservatives and Republicans, they used to be the party of thick skin and toughness and now its all "mommy, make the bad media stop being mean to me!"

Seriously, is this all they have to offer? McCain/Palin have offered pretty much zero in terms of anything other than continuing the Bush legacy with a less-impaired sounding President at the helm. I don't care how many ads they run claiming to be "mavericks", the fact remains when the chips were down, McCain was for whatever the administration wanted. Personally I didn't agree with much of what they wanted, so therefore I don't have any reason or motivation to vote for them.