Irvine511
Blue Crack Supplier
There's a joke in here somewhere involving water.
(I know it's just a typo, but I couldn't resist.)
people who rowed crew have field days with this.
There's a joke in here somewhere involving water.
(I know it's just a typo, but I couldn't resist.)
the action that pro-choice people take is to fight for abortion to remain legal while supporting comprehensive sex education, fully funded birth control, and the overall advancement and education of women because the more educated women are the more in control of when and how they get pregnant they tend to be. action is also taken by parents who tell their daughters that they are worth more than the status of their virginity, that sex isn't shameful but entirely natural and something that must be approached with caution, knowledge and protection.
Well there are many education bills that come to the desk of the president, but I'm sure you are aware of that...
Also, if we have a VP potential President that holds these beliefs it brings a certain legitimacy to this type of backwards thinking...
And would that bill get through congress?
I dont think saying backwards thinking is fair. She has an opinion and there are many Americans, like it or not, that have the same beliefs. You many not agree but by saying that it is backwards thinking, you are saying your position is absolutely right. I'm not say that is it or is is not. It is just an opinion. Others may argue that that YOUR position is backwards thinking. They are not more correct than you.
I think this is part of the problem. A lack of respect on both sides. There can never be compromise if you cannot acknowledge and respect the other side.
And speaking of which, I have a totally random question. What happens if one of the candidates drops dead before the election?
GOP RulesI was thinking about that as well yesterday. Anyone have an answer? Would the VP pick become the nominee? Would the election be postponed? Would there be another set of primaries to choose a nominee?
DNC charterRule 9: Filling Vacancies in Nominations
(a) The Republican National Committee is hereby authorized and empowered to fill any and all vacancies which may occur by reason of death, declination, or otherwise of the Republican candidate for President of the United States or the Republican candidate for Vice President of the United States, as nominated by the national convention, or the Republican National Committee may reconvene the national convention for the purpose of filling any such vacancies.
(b) In voting under this rule, the Republican National Committee members representing any state shall be entitled to cast the same number of votes as said state was entitled to cast at the national convention.
So basically, either way it's up to the national committee of the party in question to appoint a replacement. They wouldn't have to 'promote' the VP candidate to Presidential candidate if they didn't want to.Article 3, Section 1
The Democratic National Committee shall have general responsibility for the affairs of the Democratic Party between National Conventions, subject to the provisions of this Charter and to the resolutions or other actions of the National Convention. This responsibility shall include:
...(c) filling vacancies in the nominations for the office of President and Vice President;
Bylaws, Article 2, Section 7
...(c) Special meetings of the National Committee may be held upon the call of the Chairperson with the approval of the Executive Committee with reasonable notice to the members, and no action may be taken at such a special meeting unless such proposed action was included in the notice of the special meeting. The foregoing notwithstanding, a special meeting to fill a vacancy on the National ticket shall be held on the call of the Chairperson, who shall set the date for such meeting in accordance with the procedural rules provided for in Article Two, Section 8(d) of these Bylaws.
Would it pass? If we keep electing politicians like Palin, then yes...
It is backwards, I stand by that. There are a lot of opinions in life that I may not agree with but I respect and am willing to compromise, but this is not one. It's been proven wrong time and time again and not only that, it's a belief that purposely bans certain thought, there's nothing American about banning...
so, at the very least, you are admitting to the fact that she is a purely political pick and her pick had absolutely nothing to do with her ability to run the country in the event McCain becomes incapable of performing his duties?
in essence, she is a gimmick.
I am glad I'm not him because I think all of his choices were terrible.
And I don't think that Palin is a magic bullet among women that they are hoping she is. Will she pick up some women? Sure. Enough women to make a tangible difference given how far behind he is with that voting bloc? No.
If Palin didn't have extreme views on birth control, abortion (even in cases of rape & incest) and creationism, she'd pick up way more women because she is not inherently unlikeable. But these are really really bad positions to have when you are seeking MODERATES. How many moderates do you know who believe we shouldn't have the birth control pill available and that their daughters should give birth to rapists' babies? Palin is way right on these issues.
Also, she was not just about teaching abstinence. It is another of the things about Palin that has been misrepresented. She was for teaching both sides. Her daughter received both too.
Nothing American about banning.? What about banning DDT? Banning Child Porn? Asbestoses?
the action that pro-choice people take is to fight for abortion to remain legal while supporting comprehensive sex education, fully funded birth control, and the overall advancement and education of women because the more educated women are the more in control of when and how they get pregnant they tend to be. action is also taken by parents who tell their daughters that they are worth more than the status of their virginity, that sex isn't shameful but entirely natural and something that must be approached with caution, knowledge and protection.
so it's a multi-pronged thing.
at the bottom line, every pro-choice person wants each pregnancy to be a wanted pregnancy. many pro-choice people view each and every abortion as a failure, or even a tragedy. but they believe that a woman must be able to control when she does and does not get pregnant.
Do you happen to have a source?
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
There's a joke in here somewhere involving water.
How does one effectively teach about condom use without doing it explicitly? Think about it...kids are rank beginners in the having sex department (hopefully they are anyway). Telling them to use condoms without telling them exactly how isn't a hell of a lot of good. Telling them to practice safe sex doesn't do much good if they don't know exactly what that entails. If we don't want kids having babies or getting STDs we have to get over being squeamish about sex and learn to teach them openly and even bluntly about (pardon the pun) all the ins and outs of sex.
You dont even know what she is defining as "explicit" but you seem to be instantly jumping to a negative conclusion?
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.
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
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.
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.
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).
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.
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?
McCain chose the qualified candidate who was best positioned to help him win the election. To do otherwise would essentially be voting for Obama.
I have stated that McCain's experience is a huge asset
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.
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:
Its just a little post on a U2 fan website, calm down.
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?