gadgetlady

I do have to disagree on a few things, though. Better life than what? Than death? Surely, yes, being alive is better than being dead. With death there is no hope. That just plain sucks. It's not a fair thing to convey to your kids in any way, shape, or form. But there is something worse than being an unwanted child: suffering a violent death.

You have a right to be grumpy, Gloucester. You should have had help and you shouldn't have been turned away. Progress has been made and pro-lifers are much more aware of the needs of mothers before and after the life decision. I'd venture a guess you wouldn't get the same answers today that you did years ago. And again, you didn't deserve what you went through -- asking, in good faith, for help, and getting turned away. :tongue: The question of whether help is or is not there, however, doesn't justify the killing of innocent human beings. We don't solve social problems by killing people.

It's all in the editing. If you watched Palin tonight, she nailed it -- it wasn't edited. A good friend of mine edited Obama's interview with Kroft -- not adding any words, not reordering, just taking stuff away. BIG difference in how he looks: KROFT: Why do you think you’d be a good president? OBAMA: Well, I think that when you think about the challenges we face, these are challenges that require us to look forward and not backwards. When it comes to the economy I think we have to recognize that we are now in a global economy. KROFT: Why you? I mean, why do you think you would be a good president? OBAMA: Well, I was gonna get to that. KROFT: Oh, okay.Okay. Go ahead. OBAMA: When it comes to the economy, I think I understand the knowledge economy. I think I understand what it’s gonna take in order for us to reinvest in our manufacturing base, and what it’s gonna take to ensure that we are freeing ourselves from dependence on foreign oil. How we can fix our health care system. And that’s on just on the economy. Now, there’s a parallel when it comes to foreign policy. Fighting al Qaeda is going to be different than my grandfather, who fought in Patton’s army in Europe. There’s a different set of threats. Some of them, like terrorism, that we have to focus militarily, but also diplomatically, and use all elements of power. Some like climate change, that we’re gonna have to strengthen our alliances and form partnerships. And it’s gonna be much more of a task of persuasion. We can’t, you know, use our military to make sure the planet doesn’t get warmer. KROFT: But what is there specifically about you? You mentioned disposition. You mentioned disposition. What skills and traits do you have that would make you a good president? OBAMA: Yeah. You know I am very good at analyzing complicated problems. Hearing all voices. Getting all perspectives. And then taking some decisive action in terms of moving us in a direction that’s gonna solve the problem. See what you can do when you edit? Make Obama ramble and show that he's unable to answer the question. For those of you truly interested in her interviews, I suggest reading the complete transcript.

As a Christian, I think abortion is a sin, too -- but that has nothing to do with my opposition to it. I was pro-life before I was a Christian. "Sinfulness" didn't enter my objection to abortion before I was a Christian; it was, quite simply (and remains, quite simply), an objection to murder. Did the government have a right to intervene when the states defined black people as 3/5 of a person, and therefore able to be enslaved, sold, or killed at whim? Of course they did! Because when we define people as less than human and then kill or enslave them, it is a perfectly legitimate issue to have the government legislate. We don't say "my neighbor is going to kill his wife, but it's his choice so I won't get involved and it shouldn't be illegal." The same should apply to a mother wanting to kill her baby, born or unborn.

OK, then, emphatically NO. And pro-lifers are NOT in favor of bombing abortion centers or killing abortionists. No, I would not. To pre-emptively abort a child because he might become a serial killer is a ridiculous proposition. I do want the government out of folks' business. The reason I'm pro-life is because the unborn are human beings and don't have a voice (or a choice!); when someone attempts to kill another person, the government has a right to intervene.

I think I could reasonably and properly be categorized as an "extremist pro-lifer", and I'm here to tell you your "facts" are wrong. Pro-lifers provide a tremendous amount of resources and support for women after their babies are born. I assume your reference to "they're OK killing people with bombs" is a reference to war, but I'm not sure -- but if it is, not all pro-lifers are pro-war. I hear this all the time with the death penalty issue as well, and not all pro-lifers are pro-death penalty. And finally, yes, I do believe being born into poverty or abuse is better than being dismembered. Cuz to me, that's more extreme abuse than anything else I can imagine.

That's really a play on words. We call someone who is in favor of people having the choice to own guns, pro-gun. Not pro-choice. We call someone who is in favor of people having the choice of medical suicide, pro-euthanasia. Not pro-choice. We call someone who is in favor of companies having the choice to drill for oil, pro-drilling. Not pro-choice. We call someone who is in favor of companies having the choice to cut down trees, pro-logging. Not pro-choice. Virtually everything we do is a choice, so saying you're "pro-choice" means nothing. We're all "pro-choice" -- we want to be able to choose what we eat, what we wear, where we live, what we buy, etc. The big question is what choice are we saying we're in favor of? If you are in favor of abortion being legal, you are pro-abortion. Period.

We will welcome you into the Republican party with open arms :w00t: It's funny that Palin was made out to be an idiot when Biden said things that were patently and idiotically false -- like American's watched FDR (!!) on television (!!) during the depression! Give me a break! And Couric nodded and agreed.

Again, liberals would scream bloody murder if the moderator were Sean Hannity, even if Biden is a "big boy" and should be able to handle it.

Yeah, I didn't get that sense when I read it the first time around, but upon review it struck me that I could have been way off base. Again, if I did misread it, I apologize. I left the details of the Oregon "assisted suicide vs. treatment" issue up, though, because I think people need to be aware of it.

Here she is, released today (emphases mine): Conservative Opinion Columns, Republican Issues, Political Debate, Coulter, Sowell, Barone, Hewitt: Townhall.com While Gov. Sarah Palin is being grilled on her position on mark-to-market accounting rules, the press can't bother to ask Joe Biden if he could give us a ballpark estimate on when Franklin D. Roosevelt was president -- or maybe take a stab at guessing the decade when televisions were first available to the public. Being interviewed by Katie Couric on the "CBS Evening News," Biden said: "When the stock market crashed, Franklin D. Roosevelt got on the television and didn't just talk about the, you know, the princes of greed. He said, 'Look, here's what happened.'" For those of you who aren't hard-core history buffs, Biden not only named the wrong president during the 1929 stock market crash, he also claimed a president who wasn't president during the stock market crash went on TV before Americans had TVs. Other than that, the statement holds up pretty well. At least Biden managed to avoid mentioning any "clean" Negroes he had met. Couric was nearly moved to tears by the brilliance of Biden's brain-damaged remark. She was especially intrigued by Biden's claim that FDR had said the new iPhone was the bomb! Here is Couric's full response to Biden's bizarre outburst about FDR (a) being president and ( going on TV in 1929: "Relating to the fears of the average American is one of Biden's strong suits." But when our beauteous Sarah said that John McCain was a better leader on the economy than Barack Obama, Couric relentlessly badgered her for evidence. "Why do you say that?" Couric demanded. "Why are they waiting for John McCain and not Barack Obama? ... Can you give us any more examples of his leading the charge for more oversight?" The beauteous Sarah had cited McCain's prescient warnings about Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. But Couric, the crackerjack journalist who didn't know FDR wasn't president in 1929, demanded more examples from Palin. We are currently in the middle of a massive financial crisis brought on by Fannie Mae. McCain was right on Fannie Mae; Obama was wrong. That's not enough? Not for the affable Eva Braun of evening TV! "I'm just going to ask you one more time," Couric snipped, "not to belabor the point. Specific examples in his 26 years of pushing for more regulation?" This would be like responding to someone who predicted the 9/11 attacks by saying: OK, you got one thing right. Not to belabor the point, but what else? Obama was not merely wrong on Fannie Mae: He is owned by Fannie Mae. Somehow Obama managed to become the second biggest all-time recipient of Fannie Mae political money after only three years in the Senate. The biggest beneficiary, Democratic Sen. Chris Dodd, had a 30-year head start on receiving loot from Fannie Mae -- the government-backed institution behind our current crisis. How does the Democratic ticket stack up on other major issues facing the nation, say, gas prices? Shockingly, Sen. Joe Biden was one of only five senators to vote against the first Alaskan pipeline bill in 1973. This is like having been a Nazi sympathizer during World War II. If Sarah Palin does nothing else, she has got to tie that idiotic pipeline vote around Biden's neck. The Senate passed the 1973 Alaskan pipeline bill by an overwhelming 80-5 vote. Only five senators voted against the pipeline on final passage. Sen. Biden is the only one who is still in the Senate -- the other four having been confined to mental institutions long ago. The stakes were clear: This was in the midst of the first Arab oil embargo. Liberal Democrats, such as senators Robert Byrd, Mike Mansfield, Frank Church and Hubert Humphrey, all voted for the pipeline. But Biden cast one of only five votes against the pipeline that has produced more than 15 billion barrels of oil, supplied nearly 20 percent of this nation's oil, created tens of thousands of jobs, added hundreds of billions of dollars to the U.S. economy and reduced money transfers to the nation's enemies by about the same amount. The only argument against the pipeline was that it would harm the caribou, an argument that was both trivial and wrong. The caribou population near the pipeline increased from 5,000 in the 1970s to 32,000 by 2002. It would have been bad enough to vote against the pipeline bill even if it had hurt the caribou. A sane person would still say: Our enemies have us in a vice grip. Sorry, caribou, you've got to take one for the team. But when the pipeline goes through and the caribou population sextuples in the next 20 years, you really look like a moron. We couldn't possibly expect Couric to ask Biden about a vote that is the equivalent of voting against the invention of the wheel. But couldn't she have come up with just one follow-up question for Biden on FDR's magnificent handling of the 1929 stock market crash? Or here's a question the public is dying to know: "If Obama wanted a historically delusional vice president, why not Lyndon LaRouche?" At least LaRouche didn't vote against the Alaskan pipeline.

In my own little way, I'd like to think I am :smile2:

One GOOD thing that will happen with the debate is that it won't be edited (in contrast to the recent interviews). Everyone laughs at the media's representation of Palin's answer on foreign policy, the representation of which is that she understands it because Russia can be seen from Alaska. Ha ha. What a silly answer. Isn't she stupid. Mock, mock, mock. But how many of you know the REAL question and answer? The FULL question and answer? Here it is (parts in bold are the parts edited out of the broadcast): GIBSON: What insight into Russian actions, particularly in the last couple of weeks, does the proximity of the state give you? PALIN: They’re our next door neighbors and you can actually see Russia from land here in Alaska, from an island in Alaska. GIBSON: What insight does that give you into what they’re doing in Georgia? PALIN: Well, I’m giving you that perspective of how small our world is and how important it is that we work with our allies to keep good relation with all of these countries, especially Russia. We will not repeat a Cold War. We must have good relationship with our allies, pressuring, also, helping us to remind Russia that it’s in their benefit, also, a mutually beneficial relationship for us all to be getting along. Big difference when you read the whole thing. Her response is that we must always remember that our world is ever growing smaller and we must take this into consideration in any foreign policy matter. It's a thoughtful and reasonable answer when you read the part that was edited out. The same thing happened with her answer on NATO and war with Russia. When you have edit control, it's amazing what ends up on the cutting room floor -- and how bad you can make someone look.

Ain't that the truth! Republicans should demand co-moderators. Imagine how the libs would scream bloody murder if Sean Hannity or Ann Coulter were proposed as a "moderator"?!?!?

SickNTired, I just re-read your post and I'm thinking maybe you meant "that is beyond ridiculous" not to mean what I said was ridiculous or untrue, but that the practice of offering assisted-suicide over chemo was a ridiculous practice. If I misread your intent, I apologize.

You may disagree with my politics but I hope you would know by now that I don't just make stuff up or post urban legends. From Oregon Tells Patients State Will Pay for Assisted Suicide, Not Health Care (emphasis mine): It's happened again -- another Oregon resident has heard form state officials that it will happily pay for an assisted suicide but will not pay for the medical treatment he needs. For the second time in just over the last month, a patient has said the state health insurance plan has promoted death over medical care. Randy Stroup is a 53-year-old Dexter, Oregon resident who faces a troubling bout of prostate cancer. As an uninsured resident with a need for expensive chemotherapy he applied to the Oregon health insurance plan for help. Lane Individual Practice Association administers the Oregon Health Plan in Stroup's county and they responded to his request with a letter saying the state would not cover the treatment but would pay for an assisted suicide. "It dropped my chin to the floor," Stroup told FOX News. "[How could they] not pay for medication that would help my life, and yet offer to pay to end my life?" The letter has been sent to other terminal patients in the state and it follows state legislative guidelines saying the state will not cover life-prolonging treatment unless there is a better than five percent chance the patient will live for five or more years. Dr. John Sattenspiel, LIPA's senior medical director, defended the practice of promoting assisted suicide in comments to Fox News. "I have had patients who would consider knowing that this is part of that range of comfort care or palliative care services that are still available to them, they would be comforted by that," Sattenspiel said. "It really depends on the individual patient." But Dr. William Toffler, a professor of family medicine at Oregon Health & Science University, disagrees. "It's chilling when you think about it," he told Fox News. It absolutely conveys to the patient that continued living isn't worthwhile. It corrupts the consistent medical ethic that has been in place for 2,000 years." California-based attorney and author Wesley J. Smith agrees that the Oregon system is hypocritical. "And now the oozing compassion of assisted suicide is revealed to all. And the same agenda is at the root of Futile Care Theory. When life gets tough, it is time for the ill to get going onto whatever comes next," he explained.

Well, for one thing it sure will help Biden that the "moderator" of the debate is in the tank for Obama.

There have been a few occurrences in Oregon where a cancer victim with a state-held insurance plan didn't qualify for chemo, but the state did pleasantly inform them that they qualified for assisted suicide. Scary stuff.

Glad I could make you laugh. Actually, I should credit my wonderful husband. I was getting all intellectual on the issue and he pointed out the obvious and incredible dichotomy of someone on a lap band board calling someone else names because of their physical issues. Do you think she got it? I'm still not sure.

Q.E.D. I guess I made my point.

And before anyone "reports" me or gets down on me for calling someone "fatso" on this board, I am doing it to make a point. Lowbmier is claiming that calling someone out on their physical characteristics is perfectly acceptable. But those of us with weight issues should be particularly sensitive to this matter, and my hope is that hearing anyone here called "fatso" will bring the issue home to roost.

Whatever you say, fatso.

Sometimes I truly wonder what the politics of this country would be if the media were truly nonpartisan. It's amazing to me that conservatives are ever able to defy the odds and get the truth out. Michelle Malkin

Why "must" you? "Must" Republicans call Obama out on his "physical differences"? Oh, wait. That would be racism.

While there are plenty of currently living scientists who believe in Creation and didn't make this list, that's not the point. Science isn't about how big your list of supporters is. It's about what's true. And mainstream science isn't always right. Science is about testing your hypotheses and theories and determining which ones have validity. The big problem with those who promote Evolution Theory to the exclusion of all else is that they refuse to question their theory. And there are problems with evolution. The rejection of the theory doesn't necessarily require adherence to Intelligent Design or Creation Theory (there are other potential theories), but to ignore, chastise, and blacklist dissenters isn't a hallmark of science; it's a hallmark of politics.