Is Palin failin' ? or OMG McCain wins with Palin !! pt. 2

The friendliest place on the web for anyone that follows U2.
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
Status
Not open for further replies.
believe if a woman feels she's raped now a days, she will find a way to fork over the money to prove it.
diamond, what other crime do you know of where the victim is required to pay for the costs of the police investigation?
 
we all do know the reason why Palin wants the victim to pay for the rape kit, right?

i'll give you a hint: initials "M" "A" and "P."
 
You've hit a new low, dbs.

believe if a woman feels she's raped now a days, she will find a way to fork over the money to prove it.

So if, God forbid, one of your daughters was raped tomorrow, you think that she or you should be the one to pay for the kit so that people won't think she's lying?

And here I thought it was it was the police's job to protect and serve, especially the victims of a horrible crime.
 
i think paying for a rape kit ads as a deterrent to false accusations of rape-which are huge these days-by your own allusion.

diamond, I think that´s a bad argument. Not only what Irvine & yolland said but also
Because:
1) give me the number of false accusations vs. right ones, since you bring up the argument have you bothered to find the statistics?
2) even if you were right, it only serves as an argument to test all accusations to find out which ones, if any, are false
3) to pay to prove you´re a victim when you´re a victim is wrong. also , rape is a worse crime than stealing something or robbing,
come on diamond if you were robbed and had to pay the police in order to prove you were robbed, you seriously have to question the availability of the executive powers for you as a citizen
 
believe if a woman feels she's raped now a days, she will find a way to fork over the money to prove it.


<>


That is disgusting Dave. Others have asked you this repeatedly, but what other crime victim has to pay to prove they were victimized? Why rape?
 
i think paying for a rape kit ads as a deterrent to false accusations of rape-which are huge these days-by your own allusion.

i think you're also underestimating the strength of womanhood, and women working together.

believe if a woman feels she's raped now a days, she will find a way to fork over the money to prove it.


it's ok, we can agree to disagree here as we do the majority of the time-civilly.

<>

Why do you people indulge a clown of this magnitude? I mean, come on, re-read this post. Either he's:

1) Completely jerking your chain to get a reaction, which is sad enough.

or

2) Believes what he says, which makes him a worse person than I already deemed him to be. Republican, Democrat, left, right, whatever, this is a loathsome post.

What a fucking joke.
 
i voted for someone who i felt would be the best candidate for president for a variety of factors.

i'm sorry the world doesn't work the way you want it to.






i think Obama felt he was qualified and prepared to be president on February 10, 2007, and he spent the following 18 months convincing the Democrats that he was. and it turns out that he was right.

The question was, do you think Obama was qualified and prepared to be president on February 10, 2007? I didn't ask you what Obama thought, or what he did over the next 18 months, I'm asking you if you think he was qualified and prepared on February 10, 2007.
 
The question was, do you think Obama was qualified and prepared to be president on February 10, 2007? I didn't ask you what Obama thought, or what he did over the next 18 months, I'm asking you if you think he was qualified and prepared on February 10, 2007.



what i thought on 2/10/07 is irrelevant to the situation at hand -- he was a candidate, he made his case, and he convinced me.

that's what presidential candidates do.

and that's why the vice-presidency is a different matter altogether.

keep at it!
 
That is disgusting Dave. Others have asked you this repeatedly, but what other crime victim has to pay to prove they were victimized? Why rape?



because the rape kit includes a Morning-After Pill.

you know, an "abortion."
 
i think they are different qualifications.

Please explain.



Tim Kaine was not selected to be Obama's running mate.

:wink:

Everyone knows that and unless you think Joe Biden was the only person qualified and prepared to be Obama's running mate, I think you should answer the question.



in her next term as governor, she can give us a coherent statement on foreign policy. if you can find one given before August 29, 2008, i'd love to hear it.

If Obama had picked Tim Kaine to be his running mate, would you still be voting for Obama on November 4, 2008?
 
Please explain.


i've explained repeatedly.

a president campaigns for your vote. a VP is selected by the P to take over.



If Obama had picked Tim Kaine to be his running mate, would you still be voting for Obama on November 4, 2008?


i have no idea. i haven't done any research on Kaine. i haven't had to. because he's not the nominee.
 
what i thought on 2/10/07 is irrelevant to the situation at hand -- he was a candidate, he made his case, and he convinced me.

that's what presidential candidates do.

and that's why the vice-presidency is a different matter altogether.

keep at it!

I'm not asking you what you thought on 2/10/07, I'm simply asking you based on what you know at the current time about Obama's qualifications and level of being prepared for the office on 2/10/07, do you think he was prepared and Qualified to be President when he started his run for the office?
 
I'm not asking you what you thought on 2/10/07, I'm simply asking you based on what you know at the current time about Obama's qualifications and level of being prepared for the office on 2/10/07, do you think he was prepared and Qualified to be President when he started his run for the office?



and i'm telling you that i don't know. there's no magic, arbitrary standard that one must meet. there are, however, several characteristics that successful candidates often share, not least of which are a record of engagement on national issues and foreign policy.
 
i've explained repeatedly.

a president campaigns for your vote. a VP is selected by the P to take over.


Well, actually a VP does campaign for your vote unless of course the VP is selected while the President is occupying the office.

But you have stated that the qualifications for Vice President and President are different. To be elected a President does have to receive his party's nomination while the Vice President does not, but what were talking about here is qualifications, experience, being prepared etc. So what exactly is the difference?
 
Well, actually a VP does campaign for your vote unless of course the VP is selected while the President is occupying the office.

But you have stated that the qualifications for Vice President and President are different. To be elected a President does have to receive his party's nomination while the Vice President does not, but what were talking about here is qualifications, experience, being prepared etc. So what exactly is the difference?

Maybe it would be easier if you just said what you want Irvine to say instead of trying to trap him into a response for three pages in a row.
 
and i'm telling you that i don't know. there's no magic, arbitrary standard that one must meet. there are, however, several characteristics that successful candidates often share, not least of which are a record of engagement on national issues and foreign policy.


What was Governor Clintons record on foreign policy just prior to running for President?
 
Well, actually a VP does campaign for your vote unless of course the VP is selected while the President is occupying the office.


a VP campaigns for the ticket. he does not campaign for your individual vote for the individual election of a VP.


But you have stated that the qualifications for Vice President and President are different. To be elected a President does have to receive his party's nomination while the Vice President does not, but what were talking about here is qualifications, experience, being prepared etc. So what exactly is the difference?


i have outline how the president makes the case for his candidacy to the country, and how the VP is part of that candidacy -- the VP historically arrives with a long history of engagement in public affairs (even Quayle had more to offer than Palin) because the VP choice is traditionally supposed to be "safe" and "responsible." a president can be more of a wild card.

you keep wanting me to list something like, "at least 5 years of experience in national office," and aside from constitutional age and citizenship requirements, you're not going to get answers that don't exist to questions that don't have any relevance to the situation at hand.



keep at it!
 
From a legal stand point, by having a person pay for a procedure in an allegation it bodes better in a legal argument, but yes I understand your point-it leaves poor ppl out in the cold-which is sad.

A shooting victim should have to pay for the forensics test for fingerprints on a gun.

A stabbing victim should have to pay for the blood test to make sure it's his own blood on the knife.

If he's really just trying to get a rise out of people, he gets suspended, doesn't he?

NSW said it best: you're a fucking joke.
 
it's been given to you. go look it up. i'm running out of patience.

you're not being half as clever as you seem to think.

Actually it hasn't. He was listed as being the Chair of the DLC but there is no record of any foreign policy positions that he took. Since your so convinced that Governor Clinton was qualified and Sarah Palin is not, I thought you might be able to list a few.
 
A shooting victim should have to pay for the forensics test for fingerprints on a gun.

A stabbing victim should have to pay for the blood test to make sure it's his own blood on the knife.

If he's really just trying to get a rise out of people, he gets suspended, doesn't he?

NSW said it best: you're a fucking joke.



it's the anti-choice thing. a rape kit has a morning after pill.

that murders babies!
 
Obama's experienced enough, Palin isn't. Quite simple, really. That's my opinion. That's Irvine's opinion. That's the opinion of many. The reasons are quite clear: Obama, on foreign policy, has plans, has stances, has knowledge; Palin has none of those things. Why is that so difficult?

Oh wait, I know why: Sarah Palin (R-AK).
 
Actually it hasn't. He was listed as being the Chair of the DLC but there is no record of any foreign policy positions that he took. Since your so convinced that Governor Clinton was qualified and Sarah Palin is not, I thought you might be able to list a few.



what democrat placed Clinton on his ticket as the VP?
 
Actually it hasn't. He was listed as being the Chair of the DLC but there is no record of any foreign policy positions that he took. Since your so convinced that Governor Clinton was qualified and Sarah Palin is not, I thought you might be able to list a few.

Actually, Yolland referred you to many of the foreign policy positions he took as chair of the DLC.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom