Sarah Palin

This argument that Roe v Wade was the focus which enabled the rise of the religious right is interesting and possibly true in part however the assumption that if Roe v Wade was reversed the religious right's domination of the GOP would wither away is surely flawed.

All that would happen is that the focus would be changed from the Supreme court to the states. The campaign would go on with a newly confident group of pro lifers. You can't turn the clock back Rox no matter how much you might like to.

Sure, the burden would fall on the states, and those weasly state legislators would stop getting a free ride. So in that suburban district I described with socially liberal and economically conservative GOP voters, abortion would go from being a no-salience issue to most people - because they know the legislators can't ban it anyway - to a high salience one. Anti-abort candidates who have gotten a free-ride from this constituency would find themselves on the hot seat. Their pro-life stance would go from being no-cost to high-cost, because those voters would realize that lawmakers are now "shooting with real bullets" on this issue. The entire dynamic of GOP elections would change, and the influence of the religious right would take a huge hit in that party.

BTW, the reason those voters are GOP is because the unions dominate the Dem party in those states just as much as Right to Life dominates the GOP (increasingly it's government employee unions, which is even worse). These voters will never vote Dem, because they (rightfully) fear that party will wreck the economy. So the action is in the primary elections, and the GOP is not going away. If you want to diminish the political power of the religious right, you'll support reversal of Roe v. Wade. Strange but true.
 
Last edited:
You couldn't get a job at McDonalds and become district manager after 143 days of experience.

You couldn't become chief of surgery after 143 days of experience of being a surgeon.

You couldn't get a job as a teacher and be the superintendent after 143 days of experience.


You couldn't join the military and become a colonel after a 143 days of experience.

You couldn't get a job as a reporter and become the nightly news anchor after 143 days of experience.

You couldn't get a job as Director of Nursing after 143 days experience as an RN!

BUT....

'From the time Barack Obama was sworn in as a United State Senator, to the time he announced he was forming a Presidential exploratory committee, he logge d 143 days of experience in the Senate. That's how many days the Senate was actually in session and working. After 143 days of work experience, Obama believed he was ready to be Commander In Chief, Leader of the Free World ... 143 days.


We all have to start somewhere. The senate is a good start, but after 143 days, that's all it is - a start.


AND, strangely, a large sector of the American public is okay with this and campaigning for him. We wouldn't accept this in our own line of work, yet some are okay with this for the Presidency of the United States of America ? Come on folks, we are not voting for the next American Idol!

http://www.selenakittyn.com/index_files/presidentialexperiencetable.jpg
 
the religious right is already fighting against abortion and related allowances on a state by state basis.

i'm not convince by rox's argument at all. ALL red states immediately pass abortion bans. who's left, the west coast, new england, pennsylvania, and michigan.

with a little paranoia, imagine each red bloc state passing a law, making it illegal to travel to another state "to take a human life."

you cannot diminish the strength of an opponent by giving him most of the territory.

---
i'm afraid rox and her 'free market' ideology LACK the tools to deal with intolerance, and right wing fanaticism. true liberty has been furthered by the 14th amendment: this she cannot comprehend since it "can't be so." you INCREASE the liberty of Black [Native, minority, etc.] people by INCREASING the power of the federal govt. and courts.

it CANNOT happen (since gov't is evil); but it did.
==

as to rox's analysis

In my state, which is typical, a candidate can't win a GOP primary election for the legislature without Right to Life's blessing. That's because not many people vote in primaries, and so a small, highly motivated single-issue group holds the balance of power. This is why the religious right has outsized power in politics in our era.

Here's how that plays out: There are affluent suburban areas here filled with socially liberal, economically conservative pro-choice women (and men) who vote GOP because they feel that Dems are socialists who will wreck the economy.Their GOP candidates are all pro-life (have to be or that dedicated RTL minority will prevent their election) and tend to be more socially conservative as a side effect.

Those pro-choice suburbanites don't get excited about it because - due to Roe - none of those candidates are shooting with real bullets on abortion! They couldn't ban abortion in the state if they wanted to, conclude these voters, so we might as well elect them and save the economy from the union-dominated Dems. Result: A legislature that's more socially conservative than it would be in the absence of Roe. Cause: Roe. One consequence: Demagogic righties in the legislator put up an anti-gay marriage Constitutional amendment during that fad a few years ago, nervous voters passed it, and we'll be stuck with that boat anchor for 40 years now. Cause? Roe (in part).


i can't make much sense of this, but the gist seems to be that Roe, by an indirect route, caused Rox's state legislatiure to (attempt to) ban gay marriage.

i see no connection: gay marriage is a perennial fave of the religious right and its fans like amicus.

i see NO support on her claim, that the non-existence or repeal of Roe would give the religious right less strength overall.

rox seems to thing the issue is abortion: it's not. it's power. give the religious right 'abortion ban' and they DO NOT quiet down, they go after 'gay marriage,' alleged rights of teachers to show thier xianity in the class room.

oh, and i might mention that federal regs may blur the distinction of abortion and birth control. hence the religious right would likely proceed on the b.c. front, e.g. ban state and federal funding for clinics that put women on the pill, etc.
 
Last edited:

143 days is the number the Senate was in session from when he was sworn in to when he announced his candidacy. Care to check and see how many he was actually there? Since announcing Obama, McCain, and Clintons so called performance as Senators would get anyone else in the world fired from a real job!

Personally I feel that anyone running for a different office should have to resign the one they hold. Have the taxpayers gotten their moneys worth from the 3 Senators the last 2 years.
 
Last edited:
the religious right is already fighting against abortion and related allowances on a state by state basis.

i'm not convince by rox's argument at all. ALL red states immediately pass abortion bans. who's left, the west coast, new england, pennsylvania, and michigan.

with a little paranoia, imagine each red bloc state passing a law, making it illegal to travel to another state "to take a human life."

you cannot diminish the strength of an opponent by giving him most of the territory.

---
i'm afraid rox and her 'free market' ideology LACK the tools to deal with intolerance, and right wing fanaticism. true liberty has been furthered by the 14th amendment: this she cannot comprehend since it "can't be so." you INCREASE the liberty of Black [Native, minority, etc.] people by INCREASING the power of the federal govt. and courts.

it CANNOT happen (since gov't is evil); but it did.

The Federal Govt. is ONLY allowed to do the things the States can't. Go back and read the Constitution. We need less intrusion from all levels of Govt. or 1984 is guaranteed.
 
The Federal Govt. is ONLY allowed to do the things the States can't. Go back and read the Constitution. We need less intrusion from all levels of Govt. or 1984 is guaranteed.

But intrusion into what women can do with their bodies, what is taught to MY children, what books they can read, etc., is just hunky-dory with you?
 
But intrusion into what women can do with their bodies, what is taught to MY children, what books they can read, etc., is just hunky-dory with you?

Look at what is being taught now and convince me that is better? I doubt it. When everyone was required to have an "education" degree to teach in public schools is when the system collapsed. Teachers used to have degrees in the subjects they taught. My HS Annual from my Junior year (72-73) listed teachers degrees, that is the last time. The requirement was changed that spring and everyone had to get a degree in "Education". The total incompetence of todays schools is nauseating.
 
Look at what is being taught now and convince me that is better? I doubt it. When everyone was required to have an "education" degree to teach in public schools is when the system collapsed. Teachers used to have degrees in the subjects they taught. My HS Annual from my Junior year (72-73) listed teachers degrees, that is the last time. The requirement was changed that spring and everyone had to get a degree in "Education". The total incompetence of todays schools is nauseating.

Abstinence only education? Come on...that worked real well for Palin, didn't it?
 
Abstinence only education? Come on...that worked real well for Palin, didn't it?

... and 1,527,033 other families according to the stats (36.9% of all births)


It's an attitude, out of wedlock births are perfectly acceptable in many societies. Not a criticism, Cloudy, just highlighting how the divide is drawn. Never draw a line in GUILT.
 
... and 1,527,033 other families according to the stats (36.9% of all births)


It's an attitude, out of wedlock births are perfectly acceptable in many societies. Not a criticism, Cloudy, just highlighting how the divide is drawn. Never draw a line in GUILT.

Oh, I don't think that an out of wedlock birth is unacceptable....hell, I had one myself. Its just that its rather hypocritical of the GOP and their "family values" to put it in that category, and then preach abstinence only education out of the other side of their mouths.

My point was only that what she wants to do doesn't work, and its been proven that it doesn't work by her own family.
 
Last edited:
Oh, I don't think that an out of wedlock birth is unacceptable....hell, I had one myself. Its just that its rather hypocritical of the GOP and their "family values" to put it in that category, and then preach abstinence only education out of the other side of their mouths.

My point was only that what she wants to do doesn't work, and its been proven that it doesn't work by her own family.

NO! It their entire mind set! I was talking to a lady at the grocery store a couple of months after I had the IUI that produced my daughters. I was just starting to show and she smiled and told me "my husband must be very happy."

Not wanting to get into the whole lesbian thing, I told her that I wasn't married. The bitch proceeded to tell me that I was a disgrace in the Eyes of God or some such shit.

Cuz I was pissed I told her that because I was a lesbian people like her wouldn't LET me get married. The crazy broad then completely switched sides and started telling me that was only right, god didn't want us to get married and NOW she understood why I was pregnant out of wedlock!

Oh, yeah - I SO want somebody like that in or near the presidency!
 
NO! It their entire mind set! I was talking to a lady at the grocery store a couple of months after I had the IUI that produced my daughters. I was just starting to show and she smiled and told me "my husband must be very happy."

Not wanting to get into the whole lesbian thing, I told her that I wasn't married. The bitch proceeded to tell me that I was a disgrace in the Eyes of God or some such shit.

Cuz I was pissed I told her that because I was a lesbian people like her wouldn't LET me get married. The crazy broad then completely switched sides and started telling me that was only right, god didn't want us to get married and NOW she understood why I was pregnant out of wedlock!

Oh, yeah - I SO want somebody like that in or near the presidency!

My example was only one of the things I abhor about Palin. There are others, I promise.
 
Oh, I don't think that an out of wedlock birth is unacceptable....hell, I had one myself. Its just that its rather hypocritical of the GOP and their "family values" to put it in that category, and then preach abstinence only education out of the other side of their mouths.

My point was only that what she wants to do doesn't work, and its been proven that it doesn't work by her own family.

Exactly, they can't play both sides of the fence.

God forbid that these people get elected!

America has no idea how close it is to becoming the pariah of Europe, and this fucking farse of an election does nothing to restore confidence.

Do people realise what happens to America if Europeans stop buying your goods? If China stops buying your debt? If Saudi stops supplying your oil?

What are you going to do? Kill all of us?

The kind of political and economic Evangalism that America preaches is hurting more than your own people. We are inscensed in Europe at the problems you have led us into. If unemployment rises to unacceptable levels across Europe, the finger will be pointed only at America. Potentially, millions of Europeans will lose their houses as a result of the sub-prime debacle. Yes, European banks bought sub-prime investments, but that won't matter a fuck when people in Europe begin to lose their jobs, then their homes.

Sorry, Cloudy... not at all aimed at you, I'm just fucking sad at the greed and the generally cavalier attitude that chooses bollocks over substance.

What a woman chooses to do with her body is common sense, it is her decision. Men and evagalists have nothing what so ever to do with it. Yeh... a man can squeal he's the father... fine, carry the responsibilty, if not the child, but don't tell the bearer of the child what rights she has over her body.

Sorry... I'm ranting... blame the wine, blame my anger... blame that I lost about $12k today when HBOS was bought, shares I'd owned for more than a decade wiped out in two days. Jesus I loath America, love Americans, just hate the politics.
 
being close to a country doesn't really count as foreign policy experience (I can see the apartment complex swimming pool from my window, this does not make me Michael Phelps)

~ Alexis Jolly
 
Do people realise what happens to America if Europeans stop buying your goods? If China stops buying your debt? If Saudi stops supplying your oil?
.

If Saudia Arabia stopped supplying The US with oil it wouldn't be the end of the world. About 40% of US oil is from domestic sources. It could be higher, but The US sells oil to other countries. Canada sells more oil to The US than Saudia Arabia does, so The States could do without Saudi oil now if the politicians and companies that run the country decided to stop buying it, but... they don't want to.
 
Last edited:
If Saudia Arabia stopped supplying The US with oil it wouldn't be the end of the world. About 40% of US oil is from domestic sources. It could be higher, but The US sells oil to other countries. Canada sells more oil to The US than Saudia Arabia does, so The States could do without Saudi oil now if the politicians and companies that run the country decided to stop buying it, but... they don't want to.

Hmmm... I listened to an gas producers excuses today (on the BBC) for why gas prices haven't dropped now that oil is below $90/barrel. The excuse was Ike had cut 20% of US domestic refinement... so the rest of us have to pay more for the US having refineries on a hurricane path. Glib, I know.

Making up 60% of lost oil imports means only one thing, a massive US oil price hike. American citizens wouldn't stand for it - the politicians will say - and given the USA is the worlds superpower, you might take all the oil you need. To do that, ou would first take out all potential target refinement plants, after all, no one could fight back if they didn't have energy resources. I'm not particularly keen on that scenario and it worries me that the USA is developing aircraft capable of flying at seven times the speed of sound as a strike capabilty. He who controls the air, controls the distribution of oil.

Cast me as a doom merchant, but there is no logical reason to develop planes capable of that speed other than to dominate. Can't be for commercial purpose, remember Condorde?

I'm particularly gloomy. Don't mind me.
 
Back
Top