There's a difference from saying you should have a choice to abort a special needs child and criticizing someone for not doing that.

Honestly, I don't know why I keep coming into these threads. It's like a drinking binge, you know you're going to regret it later, but sometimes you just can't stop yourself. It really is pointless, because regardless of how eloquent posters like Arles can be, I know someone like Flasch will never see the light. :)

These political threads are basically glorified pissing contests. Frankly, there is enough graft, corruption and general incompetence on both sides of the aisle that I can call "bullshit" on anyone who tries to take some kind of ethical high ground and demonize the other side here. In my book, the Democrats are more guilty simply because during the past century, they have held the reigns of power in Washington longer than the Republicans.

I generally support Republicans because their positions, at least their stated positions, are much closer to my core values than what the Democrats espouse. I have noticed that once they get to Washington, other than throwing a few legislative crumbs to their supporters to keep them appeased, there isn't much difference between the two major parties in how they govern.

When I took "Obama's" name in vain, I happened to be watching youtube clips of various announcers and politicians flubbing his name. I was genuinely surprised and amused by how quickly the Obamanation members of this forum immediately began flinging racist accusations my way...and I suppose I did take it to the point of trolling -- and I do apologize for that -- but I do enjoy watching those who are supposed to be so "high-minded" so quickly resort to name calling when they feel offended. I can understand though, religious folk get pretty riled when you take the Lord's name in vain too. Oops.

I can't promise I'll stay completely out of these discussions, but when I do participate, I'll try to avoid general asshattery...can't make any promises there either.

Anyhoo, looks like astrosfan is currently toting the rock, so I'll just watch for a while.

I agree entirely. I think it's diabolical that anyone should be criticised for continuing the pregnancy and some of the comments above about Palin are disgraceful. Pro-choice means precisely that - pro choice not pro abortion and choosing to continue a pregnancy is fully deserving of respect and even praise when it involves so much personal sacrifice.

Mac, not sure if you noticed, but it is two different posters that you are lumping up in your head as all being Danny's posts.

Danny's post was the original one where his opinion is shaped based on his work or future work with special needs children.

Dutch's posts were the ones you just replied to where he bases his opinion shaped by his interaction with his sister and her kids whom have special needs.


As for the whole thing that Astrofan has brought up.. there are very few things I won't debate someone about.. but a few of them are to do with abortion or abortion rights. I'll admit that I am pro-choice, but would have a very difficult (if not impossible) decision to ever do that myself. It actually is something that my wife and I talked about after she almost died she has been told that she can't have any more children or the labor process would kill her. We had to talk about what would we do if she did somehow get pregnant. I can't imagine that it is an easy choice for everyone to just make, and in our case we've obviously done other measures to prevent pregnacy for the future.

I just feel very uncomfortable about anyone making Palin's own decision a political issue as I have to guess when you are faced with a decision such as that it never can be black/white on what to do there. I have absolutely no problem with you attacking her stance at being a pro-life candidate, as I personally am pro-choice as well, but I guess I just feel attacking her baby is kind of off-limits.

edited within your quote

I think you're right, and it's not a good sign. It seems to me that McCain has had to spend way more time and energy getting the base in order than reaching out to swing voters.

Then my apologies to Danny. I had assumed that as the answer came to my direct comment to him that he was replying. I should take more care.


I haven't attacked her pro-life stance at all and certainly criticise those who condemn her for her choice to take her last pregnancy to full term. It has no place in determining her suitabilty for the VP position. I have merely suggested that Clinton voters are unlikely to transfer their vote to her because of her pro-life position (along with gun law, global warming, drilling in ANWR etc). I would think that reasonable.

No question that they will get less hillary voters than the opportunity allots due to the anti-choice stance of Palin, but that probably wont make much of a difference in the long run.

piss on, my friend. :p

Interesting piece in the Times today regarding the selection:

Advisers Say Conservative Ire Pushed McCain Away From Picking Lieberman - NYTimes.com

This is comforting. From the NYTimes article:

I suppose there are some women who did vote for Hillary purely because she was a woman and may transfer their vote to Palin but I doubt there are a great number. I think Palin's pro-life stance may also lose her the votes of other women. I don't pretend to know what the balance would be. That's one reason I think it is something of a risk for McCain.

But my main point is that McCain has undermined his primary arguments against Obama - his inexperience and that he is not well known. He has clearly not thought that important in his VP selection who can be accused of exactly the same. He has given the Democrats an easy answer to any future attacks on those fronts. I think that plays into their hands.

But it's a multi-faceted election and there may well be many events and debates that render this unimportant. It will be interesting to see.

And it's good to get back on to the real political debate :)

Piss on, Mac, Piss on :)

well said

Hasn't McCain been reaching out to "swing voters" for the past 3 years (including most of the campaign)? When the main objectors to your candidacy in the primary are Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity and Ann Coulter, I don't think people can say you cater to the right and aren't working for independents.

There are two moderate/independent voters that McCain had no chance of getting regardless of who he nominated - those who vote on the abortion issue and those vehemently opposed to the war in Iraq. Now, Palin certainly doesn't help in those cases, but those were lost causes anyway. Naming Liebermann, Ridge, Romney or the mythical embodiment of Jane Rowe + Ghandi for VP wouldn't have swayed those voters.

However, he has a chance with conservatives who were thinking about sitting it out or moderates who do not vote primarily on the abortion issue and are looking for something other than the "two old, rich white guys" republican ticket that we've had for the past 30 years.

All these complaints on McCain not reaching out to choice voters would be akin to railing on Obama for not naming a pro-life running mate to try and get the evangelical moderates/independents. I doubt many of you would be advocating that. Yet, it's somehow vital for McCain to bring in a pro-choice person to go after a voting block (strong pro-choice) that he really had no chance with to begin with.

arles, I think his choice is fine but it certainly put a label or showed his hand in what his block is trying to do....and that's ok. I obviously dont agree, and everyone knows that but, like you said, his choice wasn't aimed at me. As Jon pointed out this is strictly a play to his base which we'll find out in November if that was the right strategy or not. It would seem that the base he was aiming at with her selection are willing to ignore or explain the lack of or amount that is enough regarding experience for her positions that are hot buttons in the base (as pointed out by Jon). A lot of us agree that those hot buttons are the most important things to that block and to that end he satisfied them and probably guaranteed that evangelical vote....ok. However, trying to spin it as anything but, IMO, is disingenuous.

But Chief, it was that "stubborn defense" that, in my mind, earned the spurning of SFL Cat. I called him a "racist tool" only after he made it clear that his joke wasn't innocent at all.

Names, like many other things, can be a proxy for race. As an example, names can be the basis for hiring discrimination based upon race. Or for a more humorous example of how names can be strongly associated with race, see the Sports Guy's Reggie Cleveland All-Stars.

When you make fun of Obama's "ethnic sounding" name and associate it with a well-known terrorist, you are engaging in racially charged humor. And when you get indignant and attack anyone who calls you on your bad joke (as SFL Cat did), you pretty much show yourself to be uncaring that your joke might be racially offensive. He concluded by making another variation on the same bad joke and it was only at that time I called him a racist tool (to be fair, he could have been called a "tool" far sooner based upon his many ridiculously bad posts in this thread).

Jokes that use proxies for race are tough to make as Imus' famous "nappy-headed hoes" comment which made fun of the Rutgers' womens' basketball team's hair (and gender) illustrated. It's one thing to make such a joke, but to me it is much worse to continue to defend it and then make another variation on the same joke just to piss people off.

Edited to add: In all, I think SFL Cat got off pretty easy. Much worse things have been said to people who have done far less on this board. If you are going to make racial jokes in a politics thread, I don't think you should be surprised when you get called a racist.

All those folks are behind him now, correct? That's because he has had to veer significantly to the right to secure the nomination.


This is more what I was referring to in my previous post. McCain hasn't yet been able to excite the social conservative base enough to guarantee them coming out to vote, and thus has had to keep appealing to them rather than work towards the centrist vote.


I haven't seen anyone try to argue that a pro-choice VP would have been the best way for McCain to go, and I think Lieberman would have been a horrible choice for him. Romney probably would have been the best, but after the homes gaffe I think putting another very rich guy on the ticket was a non-starter. I don't have any feelings one way or the other about Palin, except for assuming from the little I've read that as a strong social conservative we're not on the same page issues-wise. ;)

giggles

Mac,

The second part of my comment was directed more at astrofan than you, sorry if I was confusing in how I worded it. I understand where you are coming from.

Well I'll be damned.

A post that actually illustrates a f'n clue when it comes to crap like this. Who is actually capable of figuring out that there's nothing about race involved in seeing a liberal neophyte as Commander-In-Chief is one of the things Middle Eastern terrorists dream about. And who hasn't overlooked the rather obvious fact that Biden is a white guy that is also subject to the same play on naming similarity.

Nothing against you Crim at all, it's just kind of shocking to see after all of the absurd bedwetting bullshit over the past few several pages of this thread.

The sad part about this years election is that it has now come down to a spectacle of two outcomes.

Is America more racist or more sexist.

Vote for the black guy and America hasn't fully accepted equal rights.

Vote for the woman and American hasn't fully accepted civil rights.

In all honesty if there was a viable independent candidate this would be the year to run. Too bad there isn't. (and no I'm not making this comment because I'm racist or sexist, it would just be nice to see more the a two party system).

I was telling my wife this morning, I'm glad of the Palin pick and the Biden pick, because I think it takes away some of the non-issue talking points from each side, and thus I'm hoping (naively, I know) that this will force the candidates and most of their surrogates to speak more to the substantive issues, and lay off the "no experience" and "Washington career politician" crap.

hxxp://www.dailymotion.com/relevance...nding-war_news

......

:mad: :mad: :mad: :mad: :mad: :mad: :mad:

My daughter has cerebral palsy.

You don't pay for her - I do. She's not a burden on anyone. And not having her in my life would be the greatest tragedy.

Never so clearly has someone that knows nothing about what they're talking about said more offensive, ignorant bullshit that you just did.

Seriously, shut the fuck up.

Some of you are a bit sensitive.

That's a bit of a scarecrow. The main reason for this VP vote was to rally the base (and I've said so numerous times). The main difference between Palin and someone like Huckabee or Romney is that she can also pinch off a few moderates that may have been thinking about sitting this one out or were undecided. And, while not PC, it's a demographic issue. If you are a moderate woman who does not vote entirely on the abortion issue, Palin is much more attractive choice than Romney or Huckabee. So, the republicans got a double-dip with this choice - they improve their standing with the base and stand a greater shot at attracting moderate women.

IMO, the VP doesn't "lose" votes by himself/herself. The biggest thing a VP nomination does is offer an olive branch from the top of the ticket to a certain group. In Obama's case, he reached out to those worried about his foreign policy experience. So, by naming Biden, he helped put some of those fears at ease by showing good judgment and naming someone to compliment his weakness. The exact same can be said about McCain and social/fiscal conservatives. For that reason, I don't think VP policies/experience/votes mean that much (outside of their main archetype). All VPs can do to help the candidate is be likable - and I think both Biden and Palin can come off as likable if they are smart.

I can understand and fully support the sensitivity of those that have special needs children in this case though. 100%

Sure, but at the end of the day, jerkoffs on a message board aren't worth getting upset about. (And at some level, that's all any of us are on FOFC).

Easier said than done. When you feel like someone is indirectly attacking your child it's natural to want to fight back. Todd's not going to drive to Astros' house and beat him up, but calling him out is well within his rights IMO.

He's definitely right to call him out - I just hope he's not upset about it a second after he leaves this thread, because it's not worth it.

Todd has more authority to speak to issue than most of us. This is not about some of us being "sensitive."

I resent this. Jerkoff isn't what I am. It's what I do.





Oh, wait a sec...

LMAO

What if the kid wasn't hers and was her 16-year old daughter's kid and they did it to protect the family name and their conservative credentials?

Just a thought.

Did you do the test before she was born?

This is exactly the response that I think is complete and utter bullshit.

I don't need emoitonal outbursts from people. Whether or not you have a special needs kid doesn't make you an authority on the subject of testing.

It doesn't make you an authority on the science and prevention of such births. If you would of known at 15 weeks and aborted the fetus, then you wouldn't of even known the daughter you obviously love now.

Since we are all going down the emotional personal experiences route. I guess I should qualify myself then as Todd has.

We had a test for downs and it was determine through the procedure that my child "boy" would have down syndrome. We aborted the fetus.

If we would of carried the baby to term, I would of obviously fell in love with my child. Instead, we aborted our "glob" of cells. And a year later we got pregnant again. This time the child did not have downs. He was born healthy and is progressing ahead of schedule.

Do I wish my first glob of cells was perfect? Of course, but it wasn't. I'm not so attached to a glob of cells or fear god to bring a child with disadvantages to the world.

Life expectancy of a downs child is 53 (this is one without heart problems)
At best the IQ will reach 85 (somewhat normal life can be mainstreamed in school)

Todd, you may find this hard to believe. But, I wish the best for you and your daughter and family.

But, that doesn't change my opinion that it is not logical to not abort a glob of cells that are not "correct". I don't want a leader that acts from "religious" beliefs on topics that should be decided by logical decisions.

who decides what is "logical" and what is not hmm?

And the winner in the "From way the hell out in left field category... envelope please...

...DARK CLOUD!!!"
*thunderous applause*


first I thought, "wtf?", then I thought, "heh that's funny", then I thought, "is he kidding", and then I thought, "where the hell did that come from?", then I thought "well, whatev, I guess he's just throwing it out there," then I thought, "he deserves some kinda award or something."

Then I posted.

I just read that but passed it off as a rumor but apparently this story has legs. I remember one of the reporter commenting on the fact that for someone who has just had a child she looks great.

Interesting.

Yeah, so, astrosfan, I don't have a problem with the decision you and your wife made at all. And I'm glad that you then had a healthy baby after that. I'm sure that was a tough time for you both, most especially your wife.

My problem is the way you've been assigning approval or disapproval to the actions of others, and presenting your POV as the only logical, correct way of looking at it.

I tell ya what, your "disabled children are a burden on society" schlock really stunned me. That's the angle that I, and I think several other posters, were taking offense to.

I mean, all aboard the eugenics train, ya know?

Dammit if this isn't just something DC came up with out of jest or something, then he'll have to abdicate his award!

I also would like to add that she has been accused of using her power to do interesting things.

And as the sub-plots thicken ... it strikes me that they're fairly relevant to the thread. Illustrations that it isn't our political parties or labels that create the divisions, they just reflect them.

hxxp://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/us_and_americas/us_elections/article4647965.ece

An article talking about the rumors.

Is she hot?

If I was under the age of 18 I would do her.

Well, considering downs syndrome is most common among people who give birth over the age of 35, I'd say that the odds are with the baby being hers (and not her 16-year old daughter's).

I really think people shouldn't be investigating this story (not to pick on you Arles - your post was just the last one). I just don't think it is anyone's business. People will say she made it an issue by her stance on abortion or by using her family story for political gain. I disagree. Some things should just stay outside of the public domain. Another example was when the media looked into Justice Roberts' foreign adoptions and found nothing. If Palin made this choice, that is between her and her family regardless of the office she seeks.

Ouch. From the article Noop posted.

JG calling someone out as a "tool." I find that very amusing.