US 08 Presidential Campaign General Discussion Thread #8 - Page 18 - U2 Feedback

Go Back   U2 Feedback > Lypton Village > Free Your Mind > Free Your Mind Archive
Click Here to Login
 
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
Old 09-08-2008, 03:57 AM   #256
Rock n' Roll Doggie
FOB
 
Diane L's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Freaked out in a Moonage Daydream, oh yeah!
Posts: 8,852
Local Time: 03:40 PM
There is an excellent essay about the election and Our Band on Daily Kos right now. It can be found in the Diary section.
Daily Kos: John McCain is Doomed, and it's Bono's Fault

And why is there an ad for McCain/Palin at the top of the blogs section?

This country is so doomed.
__________________

__________________
Diane L is offline  
Old 09-08-2008, 04:21 AM   #257
Blue Crack Distributor
 
Lila64's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: ♥Set List Lane♥
Posts: 52,710
Local Time: 01:40 PM
__________________

__________________
Lila64 is offline  
Old 09-08-2008, 04:35 AM   #258
ONE
love, blood, life
 
indra's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Posts: 12,689
Local Time: 04:40 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheEdge U2JT View Post
You dont even know what she is defining as "explicit" but you seem to be instantly jumping to a negative conclusion?
I was using the dictionary definition of explicit, which is:

1. fully and clearly expressed or demonstrated; leaving nothing merely implied; unequivocal: explicit instructions; an explicit act of violence; explicit language.
2. clearly developed or formulated: explicit knowledge; explicit belief.
3. definite and unreserved in expression; outspoken: He was quite explicit as to what he expected us to do for him.
4. described or shown in realistic detail: explicit sexual scenes.
5. having sexual acts or nudity clearly depicted: explicit movies; explicit books.

I assumed she was also using that definition.

So I still wonder how sex education that isn't explicit (see definition above) does any good.
__________________
indra is offline  
Old 09-08-2008, 07:42 AM   #259
Blue Crack Addict
 
anitram's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: NY
Posts: 16,297
Local Time: 03:40 PM
Hey who was it in here that was insisting that the NY Post is a librul paper? Here comes their librul endorsement!!

Quote:
THE Post today enthusiastically urges the election of Sen. John S. McCain as the 44th president of the United States.

McCain's lifelong record of service to America, his battle-tested courage, unshakeable devotion to principle and clear grasp of the dangers and opportunities now facing the nation stand in dramatic contrast to the tissue-paper-thin résumé of his Democratic opponent, freshman Sen. Barack Obama.
__________________
anitram is online now  
Old 09-08-2008, 07:58 AM   #260
She's the One
 
martha's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Orange County and all over the goddamn place
Posts: 42,338
Local Time: 12:40 PM
Don't forget that anti-choice presidents can issue executive orders allowing certain doctors that ability to deny treatment to people that have "moral issues" with, and our present anti-choice president has curtailed access to birth control to the women overseas getting US-funded healthcare and family planning.

And who can ever forget Ronnie calling up the anti-choice protesters who used to assemble in DC every year (on my birthday, no less), giving them encouragement.

So don't discount the influence of an anti-choice administration. They will and do have unnecessary influence over the lives and health of millions of women around the world.
__________________
martha is online now  
Old 09-08-2008, 09:27 AM   #261
BVS
Blue Crack Supplier
 
BVS's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: between my head and heart
Posts: 40,697
Local Time: 02:40 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheEdge U2JT View Post
Yes. An LA Times article quoting Sarah Palin during a gubernatorial debate.

In a widely quoted 2006 survey she answered during her gubernatorial campaign, Palin said she supported abstinence-until-marriage programs. But weeks later, she proclaimed herself "pro-contraception" and said condoms ought to be discussed in schools alongside abstinence.

"I'm pro-contraception, and I think kids who may not hear about it at home should hear about it in other avenues," she said during a debate in Juneau

also

Palin wrote, "Yes, the explicit sex-ed programs will not find my support."

But in August of that year, Palin was asked during a KTOO radio debate if "explicit" programs include those that discuss condoms. Palin said no and called discussions of condoms "relatively benign."

"Explicit means explicit," she said. "No, I'm pro-contraception, and I think kids who may not hear about it at home should hear about it in other avenues. So I am not anti-contraception. But, yeah, abstinence is another alternative that should be discussed with kids. I don't have a problem with that. That doesn't scare me, so it's something I would support also."



Seems that she is not as backwards as you thought
Either you don't understand Sarah's stance or she doesn't understand it herself. How do you teach contraception if you don't teach sex? In the education questionaire for her gubernatorial race this is what Palin wrote:

Quote:
3. Will you support funding for abstinence-until-marriage education instead of for explicit sex-education programs, school-based clinics, and the distribution of contraceptives in schools?

SP: Yes, the explicit sex-ed programs will not find my support.
__________________
BVS is online now  
Old 09-08-2008, 09:40 AM   #262
War Child
 
TheEdge U2JT's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: In a house filled with boys, guitars, pets and a lot of love!
Posts: 947
Local Time: 12:40 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by indra View Post
I was using the dictionary definition of explicit, which is:

1. fully and clearly expressed or demonstrated; leaving nothing merely implied; unequivocal: explicit instructions; an explicit act of violence; explicit language.
2. clearly developed or formulated: explicit knowledge; explicit belief.
3. definite and unreserved in expression; outspoken: He was quite explicit as to what he expected us to do for him.
4. described or shown in realistic detail: explicit sexual scenes.
5. having sexual acts or nudity clearly depicted: explicit movies; explicit books.

I assumed she was also using that definition.

So I still wonder how sex education that isn't explicit (see definition above) does any good.
Then I agree with her. I don't find it necessary, using points 4 and 5, to be showing porn as part of sex education. I dont see it as a "how to" class. It should be comprehensive education. Discuss STD's and how the rise in Chlamydia has resulted in increased eptopic pregnancies. How HPV give a woman a 70 times greater chance of cervical cancer. Cover birth control. Instill in the boys an understanding that birth control isn't just the girl responsibility.
__________________
TheEdge U2JT is offline  
Old 09-08-2008, 09:55 AM   #263
Rock n' Roll Doggie
FOB
 
Utoo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Lovetown
Posts: 8,343
Local Time: 04:40 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by U2democrat View Post
I'm just wondering, does anyone here actually volunteer for either of the campaigns on a consistent basis?


Just curious. I want to know how active FYMers are beyond this message board...which is why I've barely been posting during the election and won't be posting much through Nov. 4 (I'm an intern).

I haven't done anything out in the field, though I'm setting up one of those donation webpages that I can get friends to donate to Obama through my page. Trying to decide if I should set a realistic goal or an ambitious one....
__________________
Utoo is offline  
Old 09-08-2008, 10:00 AM   #264
BVS
Blue Crack Supplier
 
BVS's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: between my head and heart
Posts: 40,697
Local Time: 02:40 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheEdge U2JT View Post
Then I agree with her. I don't find it necessary, using points 4 and 5, to be showing porn as part of sex education. I dont see it as a "how to" class. It should be comprehensive education. Discuss STD's and how the rise in Chlamydia has resulted in increased eptopic pregnancies. How HPV give a woman a 70 times greater chance of cervical cancer. Cover birth control. Instill in the boys an understanding that birth control isn't just the girl responsibility.
There are no sex ed programs out there that are showing porn.

No one is asking for a "how to" class in the sense of "well here's this position" or "if you really want her to feel good do this", but you have to teach the basic "how to's". You have to know what sex actually is before you protect yourself, you have to know how to properly use contraception otherwise it may not work. And yes you have to teach the risks but not as a scare tactic.
__________________
BVS is online now  
Old 09-08-2008, 10:06 AM   #265
War Child
 
TheEdge U2JT's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: In a house filled with boys, guitars, pets and a lot of love!
Posts: 947
Local Time: 12:40 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by BonoVoxSupastar View Post
There are no sex ed programs out there that are showing porn.

No one is asking for a "how to" class in the sense of "well here's this position" or "if you really want her to feel good do this", but you have to teach the basic "how to's". You have to know what sex actually is before you protect yourself, you have to know how to properly use contraception otherwise it may not work. And yes you have to teach the risks but not as a scare tactic.

I agree, I said comprehensive. It can be done in a respectable way as to not offend. I dont think you need to show "movies or depict explicit sexual scenes".....as per the posted definition, to accomplish to goal of teaching.
__________________
TheEdge U2JT is offline  
Old 09-08-2008, 10:06 AM   #266
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 30,499
Local Time: 03:40 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Strongbow View Post
Saying that one is the best candidate for VP to help the ticket win in November in no way implies that its a "gimmick". This form of criticism is funny considering who is at the TOP of the Democratic ticket.


if you're going to criticize who is at the TOP of the Democratic ticket, how can you either defend who is also on the GOP ticket or the reckless, entirely political decision made by the man on the TOP of the Republican ticket?

so if Obama isn't qualified, and doesn't have the experience, then why did McCain choose someone to be next in line who's even less experienced than the person he has been trying to claim, for months, lacks experience?
__________________
Irvine511 is online now  
Old 09-08-2008, 10:34 AM   #267
Refugee
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 1,943
Local Time: 08:40 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Irvine511 View Post
if you're going to criticize who is at the TOP of the Democratic ticket, how can you either defend who is also on the GOP ticket or the reckless, entirely political decision made by the man on the TOP of the Republican ticket?

so if Obama isn't qualified, and doesn't have the experience, then why did McCain choose someone to be next in line who's even less experienced than the person he has been trying to claim, for months, lacks experience?

For the third time now, I have never claimed that Obama was unqualified to be President. I have stated that McCain's experience is a huge asset and that McCain is the best qualified person to be President. I supported George Bush over Al Gore in 2000 despite the fact that Al Gore had more experience than George Bush in government.

McCain chose the qualified candidate who was best positioned to help him win the election. To do otherwise would essentially be voting for Obama.

Ironically, lets take a look at some clips of what Obama's running mate, Joe Biden has said about Obama's qualifications to be President. I don't agree with Biden, but watching this flip-flop is interesting.

YouTube - Joe Biden swears Obama is not ready to be president

Contrast here what Biden says about Obama and then about John McCain.

YouTube - Even Joe Biden does not believe in Barack Obama!

Joe Biden on why he thinks Obama is now ready:

YouTube - Biden on Obama's Lack of Experience

Barack Obama on why he thinks he is not ready to be President.

YouTube - Barack Obama Makes Shocking confession!!
__________________
Strongbow is offline  
Old 09-08-2008, 11:39 AM   #268
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 30,499
Local Time: 03:40 PM
gosh, STING, that was creative. no one has ever thought of doing this before, and no one has ever slammed their future running mate in the primaries and then made nice before.

it's a penetrating, totally original line of attack you've constructed. well played. you totally avoided the question, and then posted a little youtube sideshow to distract.

let's look at this statement:
Quote:
McCain chose the qualified candidate who was best positioned to help him win the election. To do otherwise would essentially be voting for Obama.
again, you've agreed with me. McCain made a purely political pick that ignores the fundamental qualification of the VP, that they be able to assume the presidency. McCain has put politics before the country, clearly, in this situation, and he's told you that this argument:

Quote:
I have stated that McCain's experience is a huge asset
really isn't any reason at all to vote for him. he's told us that, when it comes to assessing potential presidents, and Palin certainly is one, that experience has nothing to do with it at all.
__________________
Irvine511 is online now  
Old 09-08-2008, 12:09 PM   #269
Refugee
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 1,943
Local Time: 08:40 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Irvine511 View Post
gosh, STING, that was creative. no one has ever thought of doing this before, and no one has ever slammed their future running mate in the primaries and then made nice before.

it's a penetrating, totally original line of attack you've constructed. well played. you totally avoided the question, and then posted a little youtube sideshow to distract.
Its just a little post on a U2 fan website, calm down.


Quote:
again, you've agreed with me. McCain made a purely political pick that ignores the fundamental qualification of the VP, that they be able to assume the presidency. McCain has put politics before the country, clearly, in this situation, and he's told you that this argument:
I don't think you actually read what I stated. Any VP pick is going to be based on a combination of factors. But to ignore the ability of the ticket to win in November would essentially be voting for Barack Obama and that certainly would not be McCain putting the country first. By picking the qualified candidate for VP that has the best chance at helping McCain win in November, McCain is indeed putting the country first.

NO one has ever stated that Sarah Palin was unqualified to be President prior to McCain picking her. She was actually always in the top 10 of nominees that McCain was considering.

Harry Vest started his thread about Sarah Palin weeks before McCain actually picked her, yet I don't recall you saying that picking her would be a "gimmick" and that she was unqualified to be President.


But hey, if you really think Sarah Palin does not have the qualifications to be President, at what point in time do you think she would become qualified for the office?

When did Barack Obama become qualified to be President? Was it when he announced that he was running in January 2007, when he won his Senate race in November 2004, or earlier?

When did Governor Clinton become qualified to be President? How about Tim Kaine, one of Obama's top 3 picks for the VP slot?
__________________
Strongbow is offline  
Old 09-08-2008, 12:52 PM   #270
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 30,499
Local Time: 03:40 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Strongbow View Post
Its just a little post on a U2 fan website, calm down.

it was silly.


Quote:
I don't think you actually read what I stated. Any VP pick is going to be based on a combination of factors. But to ignore the ability of the ticket to win in November would essentially be voting for Barack Obama and that certainly would not be McCain putting the country first. By picking the qualified candidate for VP that has the best chance at helping McCain win in November, McCain is indeed putting the country first.

everyone knows McCain would not have preferred Lieberman or Ridge. if McCain dies and Ms. Palin become president, do you think McCain would be comfortable with that? can you sit there and tell me with a straight face that putting the country first is really putting your career first and making a decision that totally abdicates the fundamental requirement of the VP in order to score some short term (and i do think that what we are seeing is a short term bounce -- the polls will tighten again and it will, again, come down to a few swing states, as convention bounces are usually wide but not deep) political points and to distract from the fact that most Americans are deeply unhappy with their country due to 8 years of rule by McCain's own party (note that he didn't even mention Bush by name in his acceptance speech) and most Americans are feeling the effects of 6.1% unemployment, inflation, gas prices, etc.

it is a gimmick. and a sideshow. and a way to try to fight a culture war instead of talking about war and economics.


Quote:
NO one has ever stated that Sarah Palin was unqualified to be President prior to McCain picking her. She was actually always in the top 10 of nominees that McCain was considering.

she never warranted serious enough consideration by any mainstream media outlet. this is obvious by the amount of entirely legitimate coverage that's come forth since then. the only people who whispered about Palin were the fundamentalist base of the Republican Party. not even McCain was seriously considering her. he had met her once before. once. that's wildly irresponsible.

would any corporate chieftain pick a number two on those grounds and not be dismissed by his board for recklessness?

it reminds me of another rash decision made without having properly vetted the situation, and that frightens me.

Quote:
Harry Vest started his thread about Sarah Palin weeks before McCain actually picked her, yet I don't recall you saying that picking her would be a "gimmick" and that she was unqualified to be President.

you're right -- i didn't post in that thread at all because i didn't take a Palin pick seriously. yes, i think she's a gimmick. and being "qualified" is beside the point -- what i've been stressing, repeatedly, is that i don't think she is *prepared* to be president. she has no record, at all, of any thought or interest given to foreign policy. you've said yourself that this is the most important party of any presidency, why then would you support a VP candidate who has no evidence of giving any serious thought at all to, say, Pakistan especially in light of a new president.


Quote:
But hey, if you really think Sarah Palin does not have the qualifications to be President, at what point in time do you think she would become qualified for the office?

i would like to see some demonstrated interest and demonstrated mastery of the nuances of foreign policy across a variety of spheres as well as the articulation of a genuine overarching political philosophy. i would like to see an interest in anything beyond highly localized politics -- even at the governor level, Alaska is hardly typical. it is a deeply idiosyncratic state that's more of an oil colony than a state. in fact, would be very hard to find a governor in America who knows less about the mainstream economy. Alaska is much like Russia where oil has made the economy boom, so Ms. Palin can write checks to Alaskans out of an enormous surplus (and then some people marvel at her 80% approval rate). her one key policy issue in Alaska has been drilling for oil in ANWAR -- you know, a policy opposed by McCain.

there's no record of her speaking on foreign policy at all, save for a small interview in 2006 where she talked about hearing of "the surge" on "the news."

i can't believe that you, of all people on this board, would be defending this pick as anything other than a political gimmick.

maybe her interview with Gibson will reveal hitherto unknown depths of understanding and nuance.


Quote:
When did Barack Obama become qualified to be President? Was it when he announced that he was running in January 2007, when he won his Senate race in November 2004, or earlier?
again, this misses the issue. Barack Obama is clearly *prepared* to be president as demonstrated by 18 months of campaigning where we've gotten specific, detailed, nuanced proposals and positions on a wide variety of topics. we have his judgment on various national and international issues, and most critically, he has demonstrated such judgment in the selection of his own VP, which is the biggest decision of any presidential campaign. say what you will about Biden's politics, but the fact remains that Biden is a generally conservative, cautious pick who's deeply versed in foreign policy. it was very professional. you can disagree with the substance, but it's hard to disagree with the thought process that led Obama to this pick.

Quote:
When did Governor Clinton become qualified to be President? How about Tim Kaine, one of Obama's top 3 picks for the VP slot?


Tim Kain wasn't picked, so i don't know why you'd even bring him up.

as for Gov. Clinton, again, as you noted with the then Gov. Bush, the issue is preparedness, not "qualifications." Palin is a total blank slate when it comes to foreign policy. she has no expressed interest on the topic. she's been governor of a strange state for 18 months, whereas Clinton had several terms.
__________________

__________________
Irvine511 is online now  
 

Tags
mccain, obama, politics

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 03:40 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Design, images and all things inclusive copyright © Interference.com