Original post made
on Sep 9, 2008
Hand out Moosehead beer and condoms to all attendees and spectators.
Enough kids in the Palin clan already, no sense infecting the rest of the country.
Who knew there was such a big base of anti-choice, creationist supporters in Woodside?
Can I be president too? I managed my Eagle Scout project. That must make me a community organizer and qualified for President. Surely thats better than being Governer of the largest state in the Union with arguably more natural resources than anyone else. Ill even attend a hate filled chuch and backpack through Europe for foreign policy experience. Finally, Ill pick "The Man" himself to be my VP.
"Anti-choice" "Creationist" ?
I am offended by the labels. How does one coming out to see Sarah Palin automatically deserve to be labelled with clearly inflammatory monikers? In a democratic society, it is necessary to find out information about all of the candidates and make an informed decision. Aggressively labelling individuals only serves to inflame the people and create division. Unless you have met each and every person there and know where they come from and their unique histories, please refrain from making gerneralizations that only serve to present evidence of the baseless stereotypes projected at the other side. Furthermore, a person's view on the creation of the world is based on theory (Darwin included), it should follow then that if we are protecting the right to free speech and thought in this country, then it should apply to the education of our children. It is not to say that we should teach each as fact or let a teacher inject his/her own personal beliefs, but be respectful enough to teach children that there are different views of the creation of the earth and that they are ALL theories. In response to the "anti-choice" label, regardless of what you believe in regard to abortion, it is indisputable that the only one that really has no choice in the matter is the human life (medical textbooks clearly state that when an egg is fertilized, it has the potential to become an embryo, which is undeniably the beginning of a human being) inside the womb. I don't want to get into a big discussion on the issues, I just want to respond to your statements and provide my point of view.
Kathryn, why on earth are you offended by the labels "creationist" and "anti-choice." Unless you're being sarcastic, those labels appear to exactly reflect the beliefs you espouse in your post.
Evolution may be a theory, but it's a theory that's backed up by an enormous body of research and scientific inquiry.
Creationism is a religious belief (nothing wrong with that), but it has been tarted up as "intelligent design" in an attempt to promote religious instruction in public schools. There's something wrong with that.
All men may be created equal, but all theories are not. If I passionately believe that planet earth was a barren wasteland that was colonized by extraterrestrials 200 years ago, that's a theory too, but it's not one that should be taught in schools.
As for the arbortion issue, I'm pretty sure that no one on either side of the debate has even been swayed by diatribes posted on Web sites, so we may as well spare each other the frustration.
Moosehead is CANADIAN, you idiots.
Gathering information on a candidate is one thing, and very important. Paying $1000 to do so is another--it's called support.
FYI< the host TS unabashedly sold millions of rapidly declining SSystems stock generating millions for him but leaving shareholders with a shell company. One step ahead of the law, awash in gazillions of undeserved profit.
Palin and Siebel, 2 of a kind, it's all just "earmarks"
I'd pay $1,000 just to hear Palin explain how her record of pursuing hundreds of millions in earmarks for Alaska suddently translates into her being a stauch opponent of goverment handouts who rejected all earmark requests. Talk about flip-flopping!
amazing that anyone with a brain would want to support Palin.
Rejoice, Woodside! Apparently, the GOP has given up on California and cancelled Palin's fundraisers. Sorry Tom and Stacy!
Hey Tom and Stacy,
Since you probably ordered the food by now, how about opening up your spread to some of us small-town locals at $1 a head?
I'm sorry to tell you that Governors cannot request earmarks, anymore than you can request earmarks. You see, the only people that can request earmarks are Senators and Congressmen, and of the two people running for President, McCain hasn't requested earmarks, and Obama has had his face full in the trough.
Any citizen is free to write or call their national representative to ask for funding, and all states do provide a list of items they want, but these requests are not called earmarks. When your national representative sticks an anonymous request into an appropriations document, in the dead of night, usually because the request has no merits and can not stand up in a debate, that is an earmark.
Yes, I know the echo chamber mainstream media has been reporting and repeating that Sarah Palin requested earmarks. It is just not possible. But we know who they are in the tank for, don't we?
sure there's more than one theory as to how this world came about but theres only one rational one. anyone suggest anything from roberts? like a small meal or something?
in the fine educated words of a rapper by the name of ludacris, "paint the whitehouse black obama '08 BABY!"
does anyone want to throw 1800 our way and get your name on the back of the 6th man club shirts?
You should study science and read books about evolution, written by scientists who support and understand it. Then you will begin to understand why Darwin's theories are so important and need to be taught. Even the Catholic Church does not have a problem with teaching evolution, as it is properly understood by scientists.
People like Ms. Palin, who talk about teaching the biblical story of creation in a science class and calling it a scientific theory are very confused about science and theories. Scientists must offer evidence to support their theories and must answer for facts that might disprove the theory. The faithful don't ask God for evidence that he created the world in exactly seven days, or expect him to answer when something seems odd in the bible (like, how could every type of animal live in the Ark during the flood and not eat each other).
Also, a fertilized egg may have the potential to become an embryo, but that does not mean it is an embryo. And an embryo may have the protential to become a viable fetus, that can live outside the womb as a baby, but this takes at least two trimesters to occur, usually longer. Until then, I think science might define the egg/embryo/developing fetus as a potential person, but it does not have the brain or other development of a fully developed human baby. I don't agree with your feeling that this is the same as person who should be able to make choices. For all we know, given the choice, a lot of fetuses might choose never to be born--I mean ,judging by all the crying, babies don't seem all that happy when they are born.
Evolutionist, your views on human life are disturbing. Using your logic, if I don't want my child I can just leave it in a dumpster, because it can't live outside the womb safely without outside care.
If I don't want my teenager because they are a pain, maybe I can leave them naked in the Sierra mid-winter, because he/she isn't going to survive.
These two examples may have the "potential" to survive, but since they won't I guess its not murder to dispose of them because really, they are unwanted.
Using your "science explains everything" approach look at the instant an egg is fertilized, there is immediate change and development. It IS life and to argue otherwise is folly, unethical, and the disrespect for human life is saddening.
Let's just slide down that slippery slope as if it were a greased pig at the county fair.
Anyone who doesn't see the difference between a few living cells and a baby or teenager is seriously stupid or brainwashed. Don't understand what I mean? Let me ride that slippery slope in another direction.
Imagine that you right-to-lifers get your way and every fertilized egg has all the rights and privileges of a fully formed human being. Pregnant women would find their behavior scrutinized and criminalized. Mom-to-be eating fish? Fetus might be getting poisoned by mercury! Not gaining enough weight? Gaining too much weight? Call in Child Protective Services! And what about the 15% of pregnancies that end in miscarriage? Would there be an inquest into the cause of death, with the mothers required to prove their innocence?
As you can see, that slippery slope can be a dangerous place to sit, and it makes a whole lot more sense (if I dare inject logic into this argument) to call an egg an egg.
"Anyone who doesn't see the difference between a few living cells and a baby or teenager is seriously stupid or brainwashed."
There is a great difference between these, but they also have one thing in common, they are human life.
Also in your statement quoted above, you admit that it is living cells, therefore life, which negates the rest of your post.
If youre going to go down the "slippery slope" of having all mother's scrutinized, then you have to recognize the "slippery slope" of the previous post, which is essentially, how can you justify killing a human based on their potential or lack therof? Kill all the downs children? Kill the disrepecful teenager that isn't going to amount to anything? Kill the old folks who are confined to a bed, wheelchair? Who are you to make that decision? Its when we play God thinking that we know what is best that we take a terrible turn.
All life should be respected and realized for its potential from the smallest point to the very end, otherwise, we go down the slippery slope as a culture of death and hatred.
The argument about scrutinizing the mom-to-be eating fish is a little 1984 even for Kalifornia, and even still is based on conjecture and really is playing "what if". Does CPS show up now with every case of a skinny kid? a fat kid? an autistic kid? if a child dies of SIDS? No, they don't.
Finally, an egg isn't just an egg after conception and I refer to your first line, implying that it is in fact LIFE and should be respected.
>>>You admit that it is living cells, therefore life, which negates the rest of your post.<<<
What a sweeping statement! And totally illogical too, what a shock!
>>>The argument about scrutinizing the mom-to-be eating fish is a little 1984 even for Kalifornia, and even still is based on conjecture and really is playing "what if". Does CPS show up now with every case of a skinny kid? a fat kid? an autistic kid? if a child dies of SIDS? No, they don't.<<<
Exactly. We are not (yet) living in the 1984-ish culture that the pro-lifers would impose on us.
Whether or not you approve of abortions, they are going to happen. Have you ever talked to anyone who had an abortion before 1973? Abortion was legalized because thousands of women were dying every year after undergoing an illegal abortion. That's the tradeoff you want to make,you'd rather see a woman die than abort an embryo.
>>What a sweeping statement! And totally illogical too, what a shock!<<
a> if you are allowed to make sweeping points, than so may I. i.e. (Anyone who doesn't see the difference between a few living cells and a baby or teenager is seriously stupid or brainwashed.)
b> if you allow the taking of the smallest human life for the reason you chose, then it follows that you can take all of them with similar reason. so yes, it negates the rest of your argument.
>>Exactly. We are not (yet) living in the 1984-ish culture that the pro-lifers would impose on us. <<
Would we really? unfounded in fact and requires unbelievable speculation and (see a) sweeping generalizations.
>>Whether or not you approve of abortions, they are going to happen. Have you ever talked to anyone who had an abortion before 1973? Abortion was legalized because thousands of women were dying every year after undergoing an illegal abortion. That's the tradeoff you want to make,you'd rather see a woman die than abort an embryo. <<
People murder and always have, may as well let them.
People do drugs and always have, may as well let them.
People steal and always have, may as well let them.
That rational doesn't work with anything. Why have any standards or morals at all then? May as well all be Democrats.
People eat unhealthy foods and always have, may as well let them.
Oops, that line of reasoning breaks down quickly, doesn't it?
Fact is that the wingnuts don't get to make the rules for everyone else. We, as a society, decide what we find acceptable. Prohibition didn't work because most people were okay with the consumption of alcohol. Banning abortion didn't work because the majority understand that sometimes it's necessary to abort a fetus.
Most of us don't steal or murder because our cultural norms keep us from making choices that our society deems wrong. We don't leave babies to die on mountain tops, but in some places, that is acceptable. A law is only effective if the majority agree to abide by it.
You don't get to set the standards for the rest of us, no matter how fervently you believe you are right. What that means, in the United States in 2008, is that no one is going to make you have an abortion, but you have no right to interfere with the abortion choices that others make.
Oh, Slippery. I couldn't fault your argument initially -- only its application in this context. But your last little display of silliness cannot be ignored.
Murder: How many innocent people have been slaughtered by our unprovoked, illegal war with Iraq -- led by the GOP chicken hawks in the White House? And who was in the White House when this country helped stage the coup that led to the assassination of Allende in Chile? And what party did Tricky Dick belong to?
Drugs: Do you really expect anyone with half a brain to believe that a person's decision to indulge in drugs has anything to do with his party affiliation?
Thievery: And who, I ask you, WHO has been at the helm the past eight years as Wall Street has robbed the taxpayer blind? And what party does Phil Gramm belong to -- you know, the guy who successfully pushed for the laws that allowed Wall Street to rob us blind? That was in the days that there was a Democrat in the White House, but the Republicans still controlled both houses of Congress.
Standards? Morals? You're killin' me.
wow...lots of stuff..ok. here goes
>>Murder: How many innocent people have been slaughtered by our unprovoked, illegal war with Iraq -- led by the GOP chicken hawks in the White House? And who was in the White House when this country helped stage the coup that led to the assassination of Allende in Chile? And what party did Tricky Dick belong to?<<
Illegal war with Iraq. So, back in 1991 there was this thing were this guy from Iraq invaded Kuwait. After the US forced Saddam Hussein out of Iraq, part of the conditions were that they would have to stop their progress toward WMDs and allow UN inspectors in to validate this. After a couple of years Saddam kicked out the inspectors and told the UN to pound sand for many years. With that even Bill Clinton had cause to go into Iraq. Subsequent to this was 9/11 and Saddam continuing to tell the western world to pound sand..after several UN resolutions telling Iraq not to do that and finally, resolution 1441.."a final opportunity" Now..you can argue with 20/20 hindsight that the WMD data was suspect, etc...but the fact remains that Saddam Hussein routinely threatened the US and Her Allies and that kicking out the UN and the inspectors was aggressive and gave cause for continued action.
now you can get into Allende or Iran Contra or whatever anti socialist action you want, but based on the human rights issues in todays communist countries, you cannot argue that the US is the evildoer in these cases, all you have to do is look at 3 weeks ago in the former USSR and Georgia for current day socialist atrocities.
Drugs, my point was that just because people do it, doesn't mean it shouldn't be illegal. Ill concede the party affiliation part, however, whereas "W" may have been a drunk (drugs are still unconfirmed but fine...he did drugs) he no longer does that and has moved on and never made the moronic statement, "I didn't inhale".
Theivery, how did Phil Gramm or wall street rob you blind? Its voluntary to invest in the stock market, its a non-government program. It is the democrats who raise taxes and then waste it on insane social programs. The welfare state is a disaster, have you been to the DMV? Tell me how the government does anything well? Why would you trust Obama or McCain with YOUR money? I HAVE to pay my taxes. I don't HAVE to buy ENRON stock. If you made poor investments, thats your problem..if you bought stupid mortages because you were greedy, how was that the Republicans? Personally, Ive done well during the last 12 years, because I haven't relied on the government.
and to "not" there is an entire string to your empty argument that abortion is a choice on the other almanac page:
but I will reiterate, >>Thankfully, Mainstream is not Menlo Park, nor most of urban Kalifornia. Abortion is an abomination against humanity. Except in the case of rape or incest, the woman CHOSE to have sex. There was her choice to have risky sex. To kill an innocent child is not a womans choice. That is NOT her body to choose with. In the case of rape or incest the child involved had no choice in the matter and is a victim of circumstance, why does that deserve a death sentence? I suppose if my spouse is raped than he/she deserves to die because maybe I couldn't stand to be with a dirty rape vicim.<<
please see the entire thread for the complete context.
You don't have to have invested in a stock to be a victim of the current financial meltdown. If you put your money in a bank or savings account, your funds are at risk. Didn't you know that? Thank you, Republicans!
Why AREN'T you pro-lifers also anti-war? Killing young adults is a far worse crime than snuffing an egg. Are you a vegetarian? Do you kill insects and spiders or take them outdoors? Do you volunteer your time to work with the outcasts of society? Or are you just a hypocrite?
I read the entire thread you cited. The post at the end says it very well. And finally, narrow-minded troglodytes are an abomination against humanity, and should not be posting on this board.
And out comes the hate and name-calling...thank you "not".
FDIC insures your bank account. so they are not at risk, you are welcome.
Pro-Lifers are anti-war, but the USA is far mor tolerant and pro-life than the current day middle east, or sudan, or china, or russia, or north korea. Im sure your life would be much happier in one of those other countries, you won't have to worry about pro-lifers there, and their financial systems are probably fantastic compared to ours.
In your second paragraph you bring in spiders/insects, whatever. Im sorry that you equate human life with insects. A pig, is not a dog, is not a boy.
I am not a vegetarian. and I hunt. If God didn't want us to eat animals, he wouldn't have made them out of meat. If you want to play the Darwin card, we are at the top of the food chain and I like steak.
I volunteer at my church, and give money/food to feed the hungry at the church. ....and I swear, and oggle women, and sometimes I don't do the right thing, I fail on a daily basis, Im human. But every day I try to do better and one thing I can do is vote to protect the most precious thing, human life.
and finally, typical of the left, you would like to censor anything that you don't like to hear. so much for a truthful discussion.
Welcome Sarah! Welcome to the most beautiful part of the greatest country that God ever gave us! And we're all so tolerant too!