|
CNN Campbell Brown
|
|
Topic Started: Sep 3 2008, 10:40 AM (3,533 Views)
|
|
Rusty Dog
|
Sep 3 2008, 03:31 PM
Post #31
|
|
- Posts:
- 4,239
- Group:
- Tier1
- Member
- #133
- Joined:
- Apr 28, 2008
|
- joan foster
- Sep 3 2008, 03:20 PM
If the criticism is...we need more people debunking the Republican B.S....come on in. Most of us truly love to debate. We'd love to have that perspective here. It's welcome. But we will counter and continue to post our thoughts.
I posted an "Obama Achievement Thread"...have at it! In all seriousness, if you have information, a viewpoint...post it.
What would be the correct "moderate" approach to the MSM treatment of Palin's two children?
I think the correct response to the MSM treatment these past few days is outrage. I don't think there is a moderate response. You are either "fer it or agin it".
If I had any of these newspaper or magazine subscriptions, I would be canceling right now.
|
|
|
| |
|
Soobs
|
Sep 3 2008, 03:46 PM
Post #32
|
|
- Posts:
- 444
- Group:
- Members
- Member
- #165
- Joined:
- Apr 28, 2008
|
- Jezebelle
- Sep 3 2008, 03:26 PM
As one of them, I know for a fact that there are millions in CA who get it. It's the SF Bay Area and parts of L.A. that don't get it. It's all a numbers game. CA is made up of about 45% "middle America" types and 55% leftwing moonbats. In a population of 36,000,000, that's a lot of moonbats. They have ruled the legislature and state government for years and have run this once magnificent state into the ground such that many parts of it resemble third-world shitholes and war zones. Jezebelle, you're right. I should clarify my statement, as I realize that it's mostly the Bay area, and L.A. Just like in Michigan, I suppose. While the Detroit area is very liberal, the rest of our state is moderate.
|
|
|
| |
|
Deleted User
|
Sep 3 2008, 03:57 PM
Post #33
|
|
Deleted User
|
- teddy bear
- Sep 3 2008, 02:55 PM
- joan foster
- Sep 3 2008, 01:51 PM
[
How do you feel about the treatment of Palin, her daughter, and Down's syndrome baby by the MSM? The three articles on the front page of the NYT...who would not run articles about Edwards infidelity because it was a personal matter... What's your view? With all respect, what is the "moderate" view of all this?Edwards affair involved all adults(except for Edwards baby that he continues to deny), consisted of a massive coverup involving hundreds of thousands of $, maybe a mil., the hiring of a incompetant campaign worker he was already sleeping with, propable misuse of campaign funds and tax fraud, ensnaring numerous people, including his wife, in a fraud upon the voters, flying Rielle and the kid to St Croix to hide them.....and yet the mainstream media said this was a personal matter and refused to report or investigate. The Palin matter involves two minors who got pregnant. period. No crimes, no coverup, no hiding in st croix, no campaign $, yet the NYT is all over it. Don't these minors have some right of privacy? How can you justify this?
Good Teddy Bear
|
|
|
| |
|
duke09parent
|
Sep 3 2008, 04:06 PM
Post #34
|
|
- Posts:
- 334
- Group:
- Members
- Member
- #84
- Joined:
- Apr 28, 2008
|
- joan foster
- Sep 3 2008, 02:40 PM
I think the criticism is that we are "only interested in debunking Dem and liberal B.S.."
Well, we are open to hearing the "other side" of the treatment of Palin and her children. But you need to enlighten us...
What is B.S. specifically?
As in the Lacrosse case...all we ever asked was state your position and be prepared to defend it. Dropping in to sneer that you are "amused" and criticize is real easy.
Articulating in depth is a challenge.
Make your point. Correct us. Tell us how a moderate sees this?
Add to the Obama achievement thread.
We're ready to listen.
Sorry if I seemed to be sneering; I didn't mean to. I posted under this moniker for many months on the old board and spent way too much time on it. But it was a "for the grace of God go I" time and I wanted to be prepared to answer in detail when people who knew or found out where my son went to school asked questions. If I missed some takedowns of Republican misstatements or distortions on this section of the board I apologize. Does anyone really think there haven't been any?
I decline to take up the banner of a crusade against the McCain/Palin machine. I really ought to be spending time with my law practice. I will however address the Bounds claim about Palin having military experience because as Governor she commands the Alaska National Guard. Here's the part of the Brown interview that appears to bother folks:
- Quote:
-
BROWN: OK. So does she -- you -- what I'm saying is that you set a different standard by arguing how important it was with John McCain. No one's arguing with you he has much more experience than Barack Obama, so I'm trying to get someone from the campaign to explain to me what foreign policy experience or qualifications she has that would allow her to be ready to be commander in chief if something should happen to Senator McCain.
BOUNDS: Well, Campbell, let me be clear. I don't think there should be problem explaining her experience. She has executive state level experience. She's been in public office reforming Washington. She's been in executive office longer and in a more effective sense than Barack Obama's been in the United States senate. She's been the commander of the National Guard of the Alaska National Guard that's been deployed overseas. That's foreign policy experience.
BROWN: If I can interrupt for one second because I've heard you guys say this a lot. Can you tell me one decision that she made as commander in chief of the Alaska National Guard, just one?
BOUNDS: Yeah. She's made -- any decision she has made as the commander of the National Guard that's deployed overseas is more of a decision Barack Obama's been making as he's been running for the president for the last two years.
BROWN: So tell me. Tell me. Give me an example of one of those decisions. I'm curious, just one decision she mad in her capacity as commander in chief of the National Guard.
BOUNDS: Campbell, certainly you don't mean to belittle, every experience, every judgment she makes as commander --
BROWN: I'm belittling nothing. I want to know one judgment or one decision. I want to know what one decision was. I'm not belittling anything, I am curious.
BOUNDS: As she makes a decision how to equip or how to command the national guard in Alaska, that is more -- BROWN: But Tucker, those are the Pentagon's decision, that's General Petraeus, that's the White House.
BOUNDS: Pardon me?
BROWN: No governor makes decisions how to equip or deploy the National Guard. When they go to Iraq, those are decisions made by the pentagon.
Wiki has a pretty good article on the National Guard. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Guard_of_the_United_States
Ordering the guard to respond to wildfires hardly constitutes military command, I would argue. Pretty clearly once they've been federalized they respond to the President and the command structure under him, not to the Governor. One of the CNN commentators recalled Clinton making the claim back in '92 that he had command experience because he headed up the Arkansas Guard and that he was roundly criticized, rightly so, for that claim.
The Hoax was instrumental in my giving up on the NYT as a reliable source, so I don't apologize for not reading or paying attention to their stories. I still read the WaPo but I have a salt shaker nearby. I try to look at several sources for news and commentary.
Paliln's resume is very thin for the national ticket. So is Obama's. The ultimate test of whether someone is qualified to be President is whether he/she can lead sufficient voters to the booth to vote for them. Even Nixon in retirement said the media frenzied campaigns were OK tests for candidates, because it tested their ability to communicate and persuade. Obama beat all comers on the Dem side. We'll see whether Palin can cut the mustard.
I disagree with her and McCAin on their anti-choice position on abortion and her abstinence-only position on sex education.
|
|
|
| |
|
retiredLEO
|
Sep 3 2008, 04:23 PM
Post #35
|
|
- Posts:
- 6,705
- Group:
- Members
- Member
- #371
- Joined:
- Aug 5, 2008
|
- teddy bear
- Sep 3 2008, 02:55 PM
- joan foster
- Sep 3 2008, 01:51 PM
[
How do you feel about the treatment of Palin, her daughter, and Down's syndrome baby by the MSM? The three articles on the front page of the NYT...who would not run articles about Edwards infidelity because it was a personal matter... What's your view? With all respect, what is the "moderate" view of all this? Edwards affair involved all adults(except for Edwards baby that he continues to deny), consisted of a massive coverup involving hundreds of thousands of $, maybe a mil., the hiring of a incompetant campaign worker he was already sleeping with, propable misuse of campaign funds and tax fraud, ensnaring numerous people, including his wife, in a fraud upon the voters, flying Rielle and the kid to St Croix to hide them.....and yet the mainstream media said this was a personal matter and refused to report or investigate. The Palin matter involves two minors who got pregnant. period. No crimes, no coverup, no hiding in st croix, no campaign $, yet the NYT is all over it. Don't these minors have some right of privacy? How can you justify this?
|
|
|
| |
|
Deleted User
|
Sep 3 2008, 04:28 PM
Post #36
|
|
Deleted User
|
- duke09parent
- Sep 3 2008, 04:06 PM
- joan foster
- Sep 3 2008, 02:40 PM
I think the criticism is that we are "only interested in debunking Dem and liberal B.S.."
Well, we are open to hearing the "other side" of the treatment of Palin and her children. But you need to enlighten us...
What is B.S. specifically?
As in the Lacrosse case...all we ever asked was state your position and be prepared to defend it. Dropping in to sneer that you are "amused" and criticize is real easy.
Articulating in depth is a challenge.
Make your point. Correct us. Tell us how a moderate sees this?
Add to the Obama achievement thread.
We're ready to listen.
Sorry if I seemed to be sneering; I didn't mean to. I posted under this moniker for many months on the old board and spent way too much time on it. But it was a "for the grace of God go I" time and I wanted to be prepared to answer in detail when people who knew or found out where my son went to school asked questions. If I missed some takedowns of Republican misstatements or distortions on this section of the board I apologize. Does anyone really think there haven't been any? I decline to take up the banner of a crusade against the McCain/Palin machine. I really ought to be spending time with my law practice. I will however address the Bounds claim about Palin having military experience because as Governor she commands the Alaska National Guard. Here's the part of the Brown interview that appears to bother folks: - Quote:
-
BROWN: OK. So does she -- you -- what I'm saying is that you set a different standard by arguing how important it was with John McCain. No one's arguing with you he has much more experience than Barack Obama, so I'm trying to get someone from the campaign to explain to me what foreign policy experience or qualifications she has that would allow her to be ready to be commander in chief if something should happen to Senator McCain.
BOUNDS: Well, Campbell, let me be clear. I don't think there should be problem explaining her experience. She has executive state level experience. She's been in public office reforming Washington. She's been in executive office longer and in a more effective sense than Barack Obama's been in the United States senate. She's been the commander of the National Guard of the Alaska National Guard that's been deployed overseas. That's foreign policy experience.
BROWN: If I can interrupt for one second because I've heard you guys say this a lot. Can you tell me one decision that she made as commander in chief of the Alaska National Guard, just one?
BOUNDS: Yeah. She's made -- any decision she has made as the commander of the National Guard that's deployed overseas is more of a decision Barack Obama's been making as he's been running for the president for the last two years.
BROWN: So tell me. Tell me. Give me an example of one of those decisions. I'm curious, just one decision she mad in her capacity as commander in chief of the National Guard.
BOUNDS: Campbell, certainly you don't mean to belittle, every experience, every judgment she makes as commander --
BROWN: I'm belittling nothing. I want to know one judgment or one decision. I want to know what one decision was. I'm not belittling anything, I am curious.
BOUNDS: As she makes a decision how to equip or how to command the national guard in Alaska, that is more -- BROWN: But Tucker, those are the Pentagon's decision, that's General Petraeus, that's the White House.
BOUNDS: Pardon me?
BROWN: No governor makes decisions how to equip or deploy the National Guard. When they go to Iraq, those are decisions made by the pentagon.
Wiki has a pretty good article on the National Guard. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Guard_of_the_United_StatesOrdering the guard to respond to wildfires hardly constitutes military command, I would argue. Pretty clearly once they've been federalized they respond to the President and the command structure under him, not to the Governor. One of the CNN commentators recalled Clinton making the claim back in '92 that he had command experience because he headed up the Arkansas Guard and that he was roundly criticized, rightly so, for that claim. The Hoax was instrumental in my giving up on the NYT as a reliable source, so I don't apologize for not reading or paying attention to their stories. I still read the WaPo but I have a salt shaker nearby. I try to look at several sources for news and commentary. Paliln's resume is very thin for the national ticket. So is Obama's. The ultimate test of whether someone is qualified to be President is whether he/she can lead sufficient voters to the booth to vote for them. Even Nixon in retirement said the media frenzied campaigns were OK tests for candidates, because it tested their ability to communicate and persuade. Obama beat all comers on the Dem side. We'll see whether Palin can cut the mustard. I disagree with her and McCAin on their anti-choice position on abortion and her abstinence-only position on sex education. Good post. Your points are well taken.
I think you must have missed my rant against McCain. Pretty personal, but I stand by it still. But I will vote for him,.
Please post when you can. Informative polite debate is good for all our minds and souls.
I'd like some give and take from a position different than mine.
But for now...I will resume my rant on the Palin coverage and the MSM, lefty scourge of her kids. I'm not "moderating" any oosition on that.
Welcome Back..Duke09Parent...
|
|
|
| |
|
Jezebelle
|
Sep 3 2008, 04:43 PM
Post #37
|
|
- Posts:
- 2,554
- Group:
- Members
- Member
- #137
- Joined:
- Apr 28, 2008
|
- duke09parent
- Sep 3 2008, 04:06 PM
- joan foster
- Sep 3 2008, 02:40 PM
I think the criticism is that we are "only interested in debunking Dem and liberal B.S.."
Well, we are open to hearing the "other side" of the treatment of Palin and her children. But you need to enlighten us...
What is B.S. specifically?
As in the Lacrosse case...all we ever asked was state your position and be prepared to defend it. Dropping in to sneer that you are "amused" and criticize is real easy.
Articulating in depth is a challenge.
Make your point. Correct us. Tell us how a moderate sees this?
Add to the Obama achievement thread.
We're ready to listen.
Sorry if I seemed to be sneering; I didn't mean to. I posted under this moniker for many months on the old board and spent way too much time on it. But it was a "for the grace of God go I" time and I wanted to be prepared to answer in detail when people who knew or found out where my son went to school asked questions. If I missed some takedowns of Republican misstatements or distortions on this section of the board I apologize. Does anyone really think there haven't been any? I decline to take up the banner of a crusade against the McCain/Palin machine. I really ought to be spending time with my law practice. I will however address the Bounds claim about Palin having military experience because as Governor she commands the Alaska National Guard. Here's the part of the Brown interview that appears to bother folks: - Quote:
-
BROWN: OK. So does she -- you -- what I'm saying is that you set a different standard by arguing how important it was with John McCain. No one's arguing with you he has much more experience than Barack Obama, so I'm trying to get someone from the campaign to explain to me what foreign policy experience or qualifications she has that would allow her to be ready to be commander in chief if something should happen to Senator McCain.
BOUNDS: Well, Campbell, let me be clear. I don't think there should be problem explaining her experience. She has executive state level experience. She's been in public office reforming Washington. She's been in executive office longer and in a more effective sense than Barack Obama's been in the United States senate. She's been the commander of the National Guard of the Alaska National Guard that's been deployed overseas. That's foreign policy experience.
BROWN: If I can interrupt for one second because I've heard you guys say this a lot. Can you tell me one decision that she made as commander in chief of the Alaska National Guard, just one?
BOUNDS: Yeah. She's made -- any decision she has made as the commander of the National Guard that's deployed overseas is more of a decision Barack Obama's been making as he's been running for the president for the last two years.
BROWN: So tell me. Tell me. Give me an example of one of those decisions. I'm curious, just one decision she mad in her capacity as commander in chief of the National Guard.
BOUNDS: Campbell, certainly you don't mean to belittle, every experience, every judgment she makes as commander --
BROWN: I'm belittling nothing. I want to know one judgment or one decision. I want to know what one decision was. I'm not belittling anything, I am curious.
BOUNDS: As she makes a decision how to equip or how to command the national guard in Alaska, that is more -- BROWN: But Tucker, those are the Pentagon's decision, that's General Petraeus, that's the White House.
BOUNDS: Pardon me?
BROWN: No governor makes decisions how to equip or deploy the National Guard. When they go to Iraq, those are decisions made by the pentagon.
Wiki has a pretty good article on the National Guard. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Guard_of_the_United_StatesOrdering the guard to respond to wildfires hardly constitutes military command, I would argue. Pretty clearly once they've been federalized they respond to the President and the command structure under him, not to the Governor. One of the CNN commentators recalled Clinton making the claim back in '92 that he had command experience because he headed up the Arkansas Guard and that he was roundly criticized, rightly so, for that claim. The Hoax was instrumental in my giving up on the NYT as a reliable source, so I don't apologize for not reading or paying attention to their stories. I still read the WaPo but I have a salt shaker nearby. I try to look at several sources for news and commentary. Paliln's resume is very thin for the national ticket. So is Obama's. The ultimate test of whether someone is qualified to be President is whether he/she can lead sufficient voters to the booth to vote for them. Even Nixon in retirement said the media frenzied campaigns were OK tests for candidates, because it tested their ability to communicate and persuade. Obama beat all comers on the Dem side. We'll see whether Palin can cut the mustard. I disagree with her and McCAin on their anti-choice position on abortion and her abstinence-only position on sex education. Get your facts straight.
Palin doesn't support "explicit sex education", meaning graphic portrayals of sexual activity and demonstrations involving condoms and cucumbers. I don't support that stuff either.
Palin is situated at the bottom of the ticket. Obama is situated at the top of the ticket. Obama has a much thinner resumé, yet you focus on Palin. Odd for an allegedly fair-minded "moderate."
Whether the mission is to put out a raging fire or a raging battle or stand guard at a raging riot, strategy and approach to the mission are still required.. The president, as CiC, does not lay out battle strategies. His generals and other military commanders and strategists do that. Why would you expect a governor to have the same battle-field command experience as a general or military battle-planner? If that was the case, then only military veterans should be governors. Is that your point? Is that what you're saying? The Cic, be it president or governor, makes the decisions as to when troops will be used, what strengths, and where they will go and what they will do based on advice from many sources from both the political (state department entities, a source most governors don't have available to them) and military fields. Governor Palin, like the president and other governors, decides when and where her troops will be deployed in the state. It is a singular, one-person DECISION making role, something that neither Obama or Biden have ever experienced. Where their voice has been one of one hundred in the senate, with Obama usually voting "present" and never taking a stand for even his one of one hundred votes, Palin has stood at the head of the largest geographical state in the union and been solely responsible for the one decision that controls the state's entire NG unit. By comparison and to exemplify the importance of that command, I will direct your attention to former Louisiana governor Blanco's horrific mismanagement of her NG during Hurricane Katrina. She refused to command the guard into forward positions. Then, after the levees broke and NO was in chaos, only then did she try to put them at ground zero. Because of logistics, it then took DAYS for them to get in. Anarchy reined at ground zero during those days. President Bush had begged her to call her guard into forward position before the storm struck, he begged Nagin to get his citizens out, he begged them to declare a mandatory evacuation. They refused. So, please don't say that a governor doesn't have command over their state's NG and what the significance of that is. I agree that it's certainly not the same thing as commanding the entire military forces of the United States, but it's a far cry more than either Obama or Biden have done and a far more demanding task, being an executive task, that either Obama have ever had, and THAT is the heart of the "command" issue.
By the way, let me ask you a question. Joe Biden used his one of one hundred votes in the senate to vote AGAINST supplying American troops engaged in deadly battle on the battlefield with vitally necessary supplies and equipment. Is that the kind of command decision-making YOU want in the White House?
|
|
|
| |
|
brittany
|
Sep 3 2008, 11:26 PM
Post #38
|
|
- Posts:
- 8,983
- Group:
- Members
- Member
- #87
- Joined:
- Apr 28, 2008
|
Hi guys. I didn't have access to a computer today. Thanks for understanding the spirit in which I wrote that email. I was worried all day how LS might perceive it. As Baldo and Joan know, I try to be eloquent when it matters, but I was just so angry.
I did notice that Campbell didn't say too much this evening.
BTW, I read that Campbell's husband was a member of Romney's campaign. So what is she a sore loser????
Edited by brittany, Sep 3 2008, 11:27 PM.
|
|
|
| |
|
Deleted User
|
Sep 3 2008, 11:36 PM
Post #39
|
|
Deleted User
|
- brittany
- Sep 3 2008, 11:26 PM
Hi guys. I didn't have access to a computer today. Thanks for understanding the spirit in which I wrote that email. I was worried all day how LS might perceive it. As Baldo and Joan know, I try to be eloquent when it matters, but I was just so angry.
I did notice that Campbell didn't say too much this evening.
BTW, I read that Campbell's husband was a member of Romney's campaign. So what is she a sore loser???? Actually, she was miffed at Harry Reid using the term "shrill" toward Sarah. So sexist.
Great Email, Brit!
|
|
|
| |
|
LTC8K6
|
Sep 3 2008, 11:50 PM
Post #40
|
|
Assistant to The Devil Himself
- Posts:
- 28,863
- Group:
- Tier1
- Member
- #15
- Joined:
- Apr 28, 2008
|
Sarah Palin is indeed the Commander in Chief of the Alaska ANG, the Alaska Naval Militia, the Alaska State Defense Force, and Alaska's unorganized militia, all by Alaska statute.
|
|
|
| |
|
Greg
|
Sep 3 2008, 11:51 PM
Post #41
|
|
- Posts:
- 1,380
- Group:
- Tier1
- Member
- #273
- Joined:
- Apr 30, 2008
|
- duke09parent
- Sep 3 2008, 04:06 PM
I disagree with her and McCAin on their anti-choice position on abortion and her abstinence-only position on sex education. But they're so much more palatable than Obama's pro-abortion position. And his pro-infanticide position. Seriously, Dukemom, if you're trying to be the voice of moderation, why not use the terminology that's generally accepted, i.e., "pro-life" and "pro-choice"?
I have no problem with women choosing not to get pregnant. Shouldn't that make me pro-choice, not anti-choice? I just don't think people should have the right to kill other people and so your right to choose should end when it comes to ending someone else's life. And even Barack Hussein Obama understands those pre-born babies are alive. During debates in the Illinois Senate, he actually referred to them as "pre-viable" but he did object to keeping those "pre-viable" babies "alive." Those were his words: "Keeping ... alive." Doesn't sound like there's any ambiguity in his mind.
So BHO doesn't think docs should make any effort to keep pre-viable babies alive. Yep, I can stomach Palin's and McCain's pro-LIFE positions a lot better.
|
|
|
| |
|
LTC8K6
|
Sep 3 2008, 11:52 PM
Post #42
|
|
Assistant to The Devil Himself
- Posts:
- 28,863
- Group:
- Tier1
- Member
- #15
- Joined:
- Apr 28, 2008
|
http://www.legis.state.ak.us/cgi-bin/folioisa.dll/stattx07/query=*/doc/%7Bt12017%7D?
|
|
|
| |
|
wingedwheel
|
Sep 4 2008, 12:03 AM
Post #43
|
|
Not Pictured Above
- Posts:
- 8,734
- Group:
- Tier1
- Member
- #307
- Joined:
- May 2, 2008
|
- Greg
- Sep 3 2008, 11:51 PM
- duke09parent
- Sep 3 2008, 04:06 PM
I disagree with her and McCAin on their anti-choice position on abortion and her abstinence-only position on sex education.
But they're so much more palatable than Obama's pro-abortion position. And his pro-infanticide position. Seriously, Dukemom, if you're trying to be the voice of moderation, why not use the terminology that's generally accepted, i.e., "pro-life" and "pro-choice"? I have no problem with women choosing not to get pregnant. Shouldn't that make me pro-choice, not anti-choice? I just don't think people should have the right to kill other people and so your right to choose should end when it comes to ending someone else's life. And even Barack Hussein Obama understands those pre-born babies are alive. During debates in the Illinois Senate, he actually referred to them as "pre-viable" but he did object to keeping those "pre-viable" babies "alive." Those were his words: "Keeping ... alive." Doesn't sound like there's any ambiguity in his mind. So BHO doesn't think docs should make any effort to keep pre-viable babies alive. Yep, I can stomach Palin's and McCain's pro-LIFE positions a lot better. I always hated the terms pro-life and pro-choice. Personally I don't care about abortion one way or another but I always try and say pro-abortion or anti-abortion.
|
|
|
| |
|
Jezebelle
|
Sep 4 2008, 05:32 AM
Post #44
|
|
- Posts:
- 2,554
- Group:
- Members
- Member
- #137
- Joined:
- Apr 28, 2008
|
- brittany
- Sep 3 2008, 11:26 PM
Hi guys. I didn't have access to a computer today. Thanks for understanding the spirit in which I wrote that email. I was worried all day how LS might perceive it. As Baldo and Joan know, I try to be eloquent when it matters, but I was just so angry.
I did notice that Campbell didn't say too much this evening.
BTW, I read that Campbell's husband was a member of Romney's campaign. So what is she a sore loser???? More like just a loser, period.
|
|
|
| |
|
duke09parent
|
Sep 4 2008, 08:00 AM
Post #45
|
|
- Posts:
- 334
- Group:
- Members
- Member
- #84
- Joined:
- Apr 28, 2008
|
- Quote:
-
Get your facts straight.
Palin doesn't support "explicit sex education", meaning graphic portrayals of sexual activity and demonstrations involving condoms and cucumbers. I don't support that stuff either.
I doubt Palin is so limited in her opposition to comprehensive sex education. Several sources describe her position as 'abstinence-ONLY". Here's one that references what you appear to be talking about:
- Quote:
-
By the way, as has been pointed out, Palin backed abstinence-only education during her 2006 gubernatorial race. In an Eagle Forum Alaska questionnaire, Palin gave this response to the following question: 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? Palin: Yes, the explicit sex-ed programs will not find my support.*** UPDATE *** NBC's Abby Livingston adds that a McCain spokesperson in May 2007 said the Arizona Republican supported abstinence-only education, too. "Sen. McCain believes the correct policy for educating young children on this subject is to promote abstinence as the only safe and responsible alternative. To do otherwise is to send a mixed signal to children that, on the one hand they should not be sexually active, but on the other here is the way to go about it. As any parent knows, ambiguity and equivocation leads to problems when it comes to teaching children right from wrong. Sen. McCain believes that there are many negative forces in today’s society that promote irresponsible and dangerous behavior to our children. The public education system should not join this chorus of moral equivocation and ambiguity.” http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/archive/ ... 20417.aspx
I bolded "Eagle Forum" as the source for the questionnaire so it would be clear that it came from a right wing source. Palin clearly was no dummy and she knew the source. She gave a perfect politician answer. The question included three choices in the unpreferred alternative. Palin says yes (implying she rejects all three) and affirms she would not support one. That way she, and her supporters, can say her true position on sex education is that she opposes "explicit" sex education and the less worrisome options "school-based clinics, and the distribution of contraceptives in schools" are left open or unaddressed. Of course, the word "explicit" is vague enough that some folk might think it means pictures of people having sex or or demonstrations with erect penises.
The debate on sex education is between abstinence only and comprehensive sex education. Wiki has a pretty good article on it here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abstinence ... _education
Title V is the reference to the federal funding to states for abstinence-only education.
- Quote:
-
In 2000, the federal government began another large program to fund abstinence education, Community-Based Abstinence Education (CBAE). CBAE became the largest federal abstinence-only funding source, with $115 million granted for fiscal year 2006. The CBAE awards bypass state governments, offering federal grants directly to state and local organizations that provide abstinence-only education programs. Many of these grantees are faith-based or small non-profit organizations, including crisis pregnancy centers, which use their grants to provide abstinence-only programs and services in local public and private schools and to community groups.[10] . . . .
Congress extended funding of Title V several times, through fiscal year 2006. In October 2007, Congress again extended funding, only until December 31, 2007; there is ongoing debate on whether to continue funding it beyond that date.[26] The proposed Responsible Education About Life Act (S. 972 and H.R. 1653) would provide federal funding for comprehensive sex education programs which include information on both abstinence and contraception and condoms.
Above quoted paragraphs also from the wiki article.
- Quote:
-
I always hated the terms pro-life and pro-choice. Personally I don't care about abortion one way or another but I always try and say pro-abortion or anti-abortion.
My preference is "anti-choice" vs. "pro-choice" because to me the question is whether you are willing to allow a woman to choose to have an abortion despite your personal belief against abortion or you believe the power of the state should be used to prohibit abortion. One can be both "pro-choice" and "anti-abortion". But those in favor of criminalizing abortion prefer to be called "pro-life" so I am content to use it in conversations with them.
Of course, once the notion that the fetus is a baby is accepted, the debate is framed as saving the unborn children, defenseless children who need protection of society. The abortion debate is also rife with assumptions and accusations by one side of the what the opponents are really thinking and what they really want. I hate that method of argument, one that is particularly favored by Limbaugh. When Gordon Liddy had a radio show aired in my area, I preferred him because he rarely used that argument and rarely resorted to the the related "straw man" arguments so favored by Limbaugh and O'Reilly. A few months ago I battled with feminists on Pandagon and elsewhere when I objected to characterizations of pro-lifers as women-hating, sex-hating, male supremacist control freaks.
|
|
|
| |
| 1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous)
|