She wrote, "It's like nominating Clarence Thomas for the Supreme Court."

Rosen should have used "Harriet Meyers," who was nominated by another Republican idiot!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Sarah Palin is not Mrs. Clinton? Why should she be? Making someone out to be a demon, just because they have a view point different than your own talking points? Many people actually vote emotionally, never mind the issues. To say: do they think women are that stupid? Is to insult the women who actually support Mrs. Palin.
This VP choice is an emotional sock in the gut.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

...Stupid enough to believe that an old white guy, who's political career is backed by the wealth of a wife that he vainly refers to as a "cunt" when annoyed, has anything other than the best political interests of women at heart.

The selection of an accomplished, attractively innocuous hunter-frontier mother of a woman, is intended to exploit the votes of bitterly disappointed, disaffected "Democrat", feminist women, allows women to vote against their own real political interests for the sake of a trophy, token goal denied them by their own party and that damned Obama.

It's the same as persuading women to choose a ban of choice. Now, that's freedom! It's how stupid he thinks we are and he's willing to bet the Presidency on it.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

god forbid she may want to give women other choices than to murder their children. if they didn't plan on ever wanting to be parents then they should either abstain from sex or protect themselves better. I got my tubs tied, works great. It's about being responsible.the child isn't the mistake that needs to be terminated, they didn't ask to be concieved.and for rape and incest. i believe adding abortion to the mix of an already tramatic situation is not the answer for these kids mental well being.there is always other options. for some reason you guys love to promote murder of an inocent child, i just don't understand you liberals..

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

""i just don't understand you liberals..."
Maybe it's because you got your "tubs" tied...

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

the right to choose is vital, not only for women, but for all of us. when we as a nation give our government the right to say what we may or may not do with our bodies, we set a perilous precedent. if today a woman can be told that she MAY NOT have an abortion, then 20 years from now, under pressure of burgeoning population and shrinking resources, she may then be told she MUST have an abortion; the precedent will have been set.

that being said, abortion should never become a form of birth control. there are too many birth control options, and they should be available to anyone, regardless of age or income, at no charge. it should be a matter of walking into a clinic or a drugstore and asking.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

is an oxymoron, with heavy emphasis on moron.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

while she gives you a lap dance.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

No matter who is picked for VP; no one man or woman could be as bad a Cheney and co..The so called experienced Bush administration has virtually destroyed America through its criminal actions as over the last 8 years.The next Republican term should be 10to 20 not another 4 as Kushinich initially wanted to say at the DNC , but was censored by Obama Mia.
This VP pick is a response to Michael s family values speech. Have as many children as you want . Both Candidates will send the message that a woman should fulfill her wifely role and bear as many kids as you want. so no choice; continue to be the traditional woman/mother in fostering overpopulation in the world, We will definitely need Alaskan oil to feed all these new hungry mouths yet to come into the world with unbridled reproduction.One question ;how did the new VP know that she would have a Downs syndrome child? Only an amniocenteses can diagnose that birth defect.If she was going to have the baby any way no matter what, why the diagnostics?Did she and her husband really contemplate abortion and decide against it?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

If a women working in the lowest labor position at the Alaska state building were to have an uwanted pregnancy, would she be guranteed paid maternity leave for the duration of her pregnancy and then time to bond with her child? Could she come back to her job with her seniority intact? Does she have medical coverage to ensure prenatal and post natal care? Are there child care services at her job? Does her job make allowance for her to attend to the myriad aspects of raising a child (doctor appts, child sick days, days when school is closed, school plays, parent teacher conferences etc)?

I am professional, my wife is self employed and we struggle with trying to provide the best care for our four year old son. As an EAP counselor at a federal facility I know that those at the lower economic rungs find these challengs to be very real. So what actions can Ms. Palin point to that would indicate her (and the Feminist for Life) actually dealing with these issues?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Is Sarah Palin's teenage daughter the one saddled with caring for the new baby? she is the only one holding the baby in all the pictures..it that was Feminists for Life do...have babies they dont' really have time for and give them to their other children to raise?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Your use of the word "choose" to mean taking your own child's life away is just as meaningless as perhaps Foster's use of that word. Why do so many people recognize men's opportunity of "choice" as pre-pregnancy, but then turn around and fail to acknowledge women's opportunity to choose within that same time frame? People of many political persuasions hate to see "choice" dumbed down into a euphimism for abortion.
Perhaps you need to look up "democrats for life" or the 95/10 campaign. In the middle of all this there are plenty of people who just want most abortions to end, and they are willing to do some work to make it happen. Plenty of them are relatively "progressive" on many issues, but won't be told how to think. Maybe we could start by acknowledging the importance of the almost-extinct family, and the small community which is also in trouble.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

.. can't take care of themselves
.. can't make decisions for themselves
.. don't know whats best for them
.. need welfare

I think its insulting to have this woman lecturing college-bound girls that "HEY you have a choice! Have that baby and collect food stamps from the government!" Gimme a break.

Yes its true that women delay having children until their financially stable.. its also true that women will delay having children until they have a suitable mate! How many times have you heard this phrase on the Maury show "I dont want -him- to be the father"? And in another case the Washington Post reported how we have a whole nation of Japanese women who are refusing to get married and have kids:
http://tinyurl.com/6ekego

I think both are compelling arguments that its not society that's failed by not providing family-friendly policies.. but clearly MEN have failed women on a pandemic scale. To the point that women would rather stay childless or raise a child as a single mom. Unfortunately that's the CHOICE ladies are taking.

So no, I dont think women are irresponsible for having/not-having kids.. I think there's a disproportionate number of man-children running around with a selfish disregard for taking responsibility for their spermatozoa whether it lands in a tissue, tube sock, or someone's womb.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Please...

You and the Obama people sure have steped into this one haven't you? A woman's choice is her choice and let's leave it at that.

Governor Palin is not inexperienced, she has been to Germany and actually met with the wounded troops, where Obama has not. She also and has traveled to Iraq as many times as Obama.

As the Governor of ALaska, she negotiates with Russia on fishing rights, works with the Canadian goverment on issues,is the Commander of the AL National Guard. She has sent her troops to the current wars,to fight natural disasters and to deal with other problems in her state.

She has experience balancing a budget of a state, working with both parties, fought with oil companies, politicians and lobbyists. She knows her values, her core, and how to say no to those who are not good for the people of Alaska. Obama has experience in the "see-no-evil" attitude of the Chicago political machine and came up thinking that this is how it is done.

Obama, argues that he deserves the President's job because he possesses superior "judgement". His judgement, is limited to speeches, running for office, and his associations and associates, which include bullies, thugs and terrorists. He is always telling us what he is going to do... but you can not make your reputation on things that you are going to do. Gov. Palin has done these things, and with a hign approval rating in her state.

Obama not Gov. Palin is the worst affirmative action project, as he is not qualified to lead, and my vote is going to McCain-Palin, which is not an insult to American women. Senator McCain gets it, and had the balls to select a woman.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

So much for her conservative feminism--this is a woman who ran back to birth three days after her Downs child was born--a time when the baby could have used so mothering.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Governor Palin had a Down's Syndrome child close to her 44th birthday. This is a bit beyond accepting what you are naturally given in married life. This is pumping your body with hormones in order to crank out a fifth child at 44, which is unnatural, which leaves you open to kids with Down's Syndrome.

The world's record for using hormones to jigger a child out of an old body is age 69.

Maybe Gov. Palin should form "Feminists for Life on Steroids". Every woman up to, say, 50 or 60 should be cranking out more and more Christian babies.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Feminists for Life?
I have a question. WHO is going to pay for this
choice? Here's an idea. This Feminist for Life thing can work but it has to be paired with a campaign called -- WHERE'S DADDY???
Then you will hear some howls about
rights from men. None of this "that evil woman tricked me" stuff either. Your genes are there you're square and got yourself half the bill for the next 18 years. How do we make up for the missing factor here?

I think the mass media plays up movie stars and women with the means having children without a father, it is glamourous on TV and all the problems seem to be magically solved. The reality of a young mother without adequate support, education and an employer who provides daycare is not a pretty sight. I have worked in early childhood centers and seen some of the results of this. Don't get me wrong, most women do the best they can, are heroic in their efforts, and have a partner or relatives that help them but the ones who aren't making it and those children are what will break your heart.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

To have a baby despite knowing for sure he'll have Down syndrome? Most women, IMO, will think Palin is a heartless monster.

Also she named the kid TRIG. Again, a heartless monster! It certainly takes attention away from those supposedly ridiculous "black" names, doesn't it?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

"Governor Palin, if you were pregnant with a child you knew would be HOMOSEXUAL, would you consider an abortion?"

Uhhhhh, uhhhhhh.....

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Karl Rove is behind this and its a briliant move. If we don't think she's a threat to progressive democracy we will pay the price in November. Rise up all you bloggers! Get on the Phone! Work the streets! This is going to be a battle for the American Soul and we had better win or the storm troopers are just over the horizon. Are you aware that HHS has already tried to classify contiception as abortion? Its happening as we speak!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

LOL, I think Palin is about as ready to fill the presidents shoes as I am to fill Mike Tysons shoes. LOL, it just aint happening! Seriously, I think McBush is smoking Crack!

Whistler
Is your ISP watching you?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

With all the issues facing this country and the world, why do we have to get stuck in the abortion debate?

That debate will never end. Let's please NOT focus this election on this one issue.

The majority of Americans wish to keep abortion legal. That has been true for a very long time. The right wingers NEVER acknowledge that simple fact. In a democracy, one would think that the majority opinion would prevail.

Being in favor of legalized abortions certainly does not mean we're all a bunch of baby killers. Rather we recognize the need for a safe and legal way to end an unwanted pregnancy. No one should be forced to have an abortion and no one should be forced to bear a child. Ever.

Since I am one of those evil scientists types, I find it rather easy to distinguish between a real child and a fetus.

I get so tired of the emotionally laden hysteria from the right. They get all upset over the "death" of a bunch of cells but then cheer the war and torture. Is that their culture of life?

I wish they would just get over it, keep their own legs crossed, and leave me the hell alone.

Luv,
Granny

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

One of the arguments used to deny women the vote was that women would vote as a unified block, and would universally oppose war and support prohibition.

That was never true, and the candidacies of Senator Clinton and Governor Palin are proof that women can and do diverge on how to address the most important questions facing our society.

As Suffragettes dedicated their lives to securing votes for women, there were opposed by many women who were what was known as 'anti.'

These were women who opposed votes for women on the grounds that women were either not capable of, and/or should not be subjected to the responsibility of selecting political leaders.

The most influential 'anti' lived in the White House. First Lady Edith Wilson was a wealthy Washington widow who married President Wilson in 1915, six months after the death of his pro-suffrage wife Ellen. She endeared herself to her future husband, who had consistently defended 'democracy' but opposed votes for women, when she declared that she didn't even know who the candidates were in the 1912 election, and felt that women had no business whatsoever in politics.

Her role in Wilson's decision to jail and torture Alice Paul and hundreds of other Suffragettes who picketed the White House will never be fully known, but what is known is that she was outraged that these women would dare to criticize her husband.

How the Suffragettes managed to achieve victory in the face of opposition from such a powerful member of their own gender is a fascinating and inspiring story.

But most people are totally in the dark about HOW the suffragettes won, and what life was REALLY like for women before they did.

"The Privilege of Voting" is a new free e-mail series that follows eight great women from 1912 - 1920 to reveal ALL that happened to set the stage for women to win the vote.

This is no boring history report. It's a real-life soap opera!

Two beautiful and extremely powerful suffragettes -- Alice Paul and Emmeline Pankhurst are featured, along with Edith Wharton, Isadora Duncan, Alice Roosevelt, two gorgeous presidential mistresses, and First Lady Edith Wilson.

There are tons of heartache for the heroines of the 'women's vote' on the rocky road to the ballot box, but in the end, they WIN!

Exciting, sequential 10-minute e-mail episodes are perfect for coffeebreaks, or anytime.

There is much that is useful for today's activists in the successful strategies of the suffragettes. Be among the few who know what it REALLY took to win!

Subscribe free at

www.CoffeebreakReaders.com/subscribe.html

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

How can you be pro-life and still support the death penalty?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Who wins by having legal abortion? The irresponsible men. They can just throw the mother of their unborn child a couple hundred and say, "Go kill it, because I don't care about you and I care even less for our child. The most you can expect from me is a drive to the abortuary and I'll foot the bill for the abortion."

Abortion is barbaric, and creates a nation of barbarians.

The conscience of such a man [who buys his way out of a dilemma by paying for the murder of his own child] will be somewhat seared, but nothing compared to that of the woman who undergoes the murder of the baby in her own womb, a supposedly safe and warm place for her tiny innocent child to grow.

Abortion is the biggest corrupter of the conscience and character of Americans, more than anything else the Luciferian Global Elites have foisted on the duped American "goyim." And the shed blood of 1.5 million unborn babies over the course of these past 35 years has fed the Leviathan that is about to consume us all.

WWIII started 8/8/8 and the biggest arsenal of nukes are pointed straight at us. Our "leaders" are provoking the attack, because we are as unwanted to them as an unborn child is to a woman who cheats on her husband and gets pregnant while her husband is away.

We have no bomb shelters. The elite, the eugencists who hate us, will crawl into their underground cities and rejoice at our death, and then come out and create their New World Order, complete with blood sports resurrected from the Roman Colliseum and Mayan temples. Those people not culled will be made total robot slaves, body, mind and soul, and serve a personification of Lucifer himself. The Inquisition will commence in full force once again. The blood will flow.

God hates the shedding of innocent blood, and so do I. God says, Woe to those who call evil good and good evil. Calling baby murder a good thing, to put it as the highest and most sacred right -- this is pure barbarism.

Watch Alex Jones documentary Endgame online. It's free. Watch his latest Truth Rising also.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

...when it comes to private people choosing options for their medical decisions.

Palin disfavors abortions for pregnant women; Clinton disfavors choice in health care, period. Yawn, good thing neither will (hopefully) ever be president.

While her nomination does say something a little positive for the country--that being that the day has a arrived when there will either be a woman VP or a "minority"* Prez, it gives us basically more of the same: a disregard for civil liberties on the left and right, sprinkled with a few substantive differences on policy.

No doubt, both of the two are committed to trampling the Constitution and rolling the ball further towards hell on our economy. The only trick will be figuring out whether the demoboobs or republicrats will speed us there faster.

*yada, yada and blather on, we're all members of one minority of the other, but i still say this is good thing, even if Obama is only a marginally better choice than McCain.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

This woman has got to be very naive, which means they are using her.

Either that, or she's an excellent paid liar, and not prolife at all, just playing the role.

That's what the Illuminati do though -- playact during the day, and torture and orgy and drink babies' blood at night. No joke.

For example, Fritz Springmeyer says Al Gore is a vampire take human blood with him at all times in his travels so he can get his fix. This blood doesn't come from the Red Cross, but from the torture dungeons. George Bush is said to enjoy watching live streaming torture sessions of poor victims, undergoing tortures that he personally invented.

I don't know if it's true or not, but I am not shocked if it is true. Read the Franklin Coverup by John DeCamp and watch Conspiracy of Silence on line. It is sickening, but a true documentary. And of course Alex Jones broke into Bohemian Grove and filmed their Cremation of Care ceremony before a huge stone idol of Molech.

These people are sick, evil beyond what we can comprehend, and they mean for us all to suffer and die. Check out the concentration camps that they have built for us, assuming there's anybody left to put in them once they incite Russia to lob a few of their 20,000 nukes they have pointed at us.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

To those who say it is some kind of child abuse to expect the eldest child to help out with the care of the younger, having a younger brother to care for is a blessing, not a curse, a joy, which is why so many teens with baby brothers or sisters gladly help out with diaper changing, feeding, and take them for walks and outdoor excursions gladly.

I grew up in a big family, the oldest one, and the babies were the ones who gave us all a kick. They made us laugh, and they were passed around from lap to lap. Caring for them gave us character and a tender heart. And we had plenty of time for ourselves to do all kinds of things.

Big families are the best. Those who say otherwise are brainwashed by the corruptand corrupting controlled media.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

No, that would never happen. :O)

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

McCain's handlers pick of Palin for VP (since "McCain doesn't speak for the McCain campaign") is not just an "insult to women", it's an insult men too, and to every single thinking person in this country!!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

My spouse and I raised three children from birth to adulthood. It was a very difficult undertaking, which required lots of money, resources, time and attention over a period of more than twenty years for each. We had "normal" kids with no special needs or challenges, all of whom we chose to have. Even so, we both had to work the whole time, sometimes more than one job each. And the money still ran low, causing us to borrow money from our parents on several occasions. We were very fortunate to have parents still alive and doing well enough to help us out.

The point is, if it's so very difficult for ordinary folks working overtime at good jobs to afford traditional child-rearing, how on Earth is a single mother supposed to do it? Because if the anti-choicers get their way and disallow abortion altogether, we're looking at a lot more single moms, many or perhaps most still lacking credentials for high-paying jobs of any type.

If society as a whole disallows the option of terminating a pregnancy when the mother is not capable of raising a child on her own, then it is incumbent upon that society to make the resources available to raise the child to adulthood. The consequences of forcing women to carry unwanted pregnancies to term will be a growing number of new citizens in need of EVERYTHING: food, shelter, day-care, education, health-care, etc.

Are the anti-choice crowd prepared to cough up the dough?? Of course not! As Mr. Obama pointed out, the Republican plan is "you're on your own"! The same folks who are reciting their "sanctity of human life" drivel are busy scuttling things like health-care coverage for children, day-care at work/school, equal pay for women, and everything else which might actually make it possible to bring those kids up.

The proper response to the anti-choise squad (IMHO) is to forget about the emotional aspects of the situation and hammer on the economics of it. If America is ready to pitch in and create the social infrastructure (i.e., social programs) to help care for and raise those kids up through college, yielding productive citizens rather than prison fodder, then maybe American women could eschew abortion altogether, with no misgivings.

But I don't see it. Republicans are quick to thrust their fictitious "morality" on everyone, but will refuse to contribute the pennies needed to feed the starving or tend the sick. They want to control women's bodies and restrict their choices at a pivotal time in their lives, but want no part of the demanding process of transforming that embryo into an adult human being. Those who will not take responsibility for the consequences of that very difficult decision have no right to control the decision-making process.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

AND THERE'S LOTS MORE ON THIS WEBSITE
http://www.reddit.com/
comments/6f 3nq/
coverup_alaska_gov
_palin_r_announced_she_was/
c03o1ma

Cover-up? Alaska Gov. Palin (R) announced she was pregnant. Local rumors suggest she is covering up for her 16 y/o daughter. (self.politics)



On March 5th, 2008 Alaska's Republican Governor, Sarah Palin, announced to the media that she was 7 months pregnant with her 5th child. She is currently 44.

The controversy arises from two sources: First, Palin does not appear preganant in any recent photographs. The announcement came as quite a shock to people who had worked closely with her, and have been quoted as saying that she did not appear pregnant whatsoever during the prior 7 months. While this is debatable, you can judge for yourself here: http://gov.state.ak.us/
photos.php

Second, Palin's daughter Bristol is 16 and attends an Anchorage high school. Students who have attended class with her report that she has been out of school for months, claiming a prolonged case of mono.

Apparently, this rumor has made the rounds in the upper echelon of the Alaska legislature, and is a closely guarded secret. As far as I know, this rumor has not been discussed by any media outlets, in Alaska or otherwise.

The points here are based mostly upon hearsay, and I'm not trying to destroy an innocent family. However, a Republican politician hiding a pregnant teenage daughter seems rather newsworthy.



AKStuart 12 points 13 hours ago[-]

Went to school with the daughter in question for a few months, before they moved from Juneau to Anchorage.

Word on the street was that she snorted diet pills and smoked other such things. I'm pretty sure she did a lot of other things, too.

This pregnancy rumor has been popping up a lot in our school (well, at least until I graduated last year.) I wouldn't doubt it, either.



ChimpWithACar 1 point 8 hours ago[+] (1 child)


dmsean 1 point 1 hour ago[+] (0 children)



so obviously not a karma whore



tartle 5 points 14 hours ago[+] (0 children)



Check out the video for yourself...

"At the time, I didn't know that Palin, clad in a loose, dark dress, was seven months pregnant with her fifth child."

http://blog.newsweek.com/
blogs/stumper/archive/2008/08/29/
breslau-palin-on-clinton.aspx
/>
Even close members of her staff said they only learned this week their boss was expecting.

"I thought it was becoming obvious," Palin said. "You know, clothes getting snugger and snugger."

But people just couldn't believe the news.

http://www.adn.com/front/story/336402.html



nucleophile 4 points 14 hours ago[-]

""The stage of her pregnancy was not apparent by observation. She did not show any signs of distress," Boren said.

Palin never got big with this pregnancy. She said she didn't try to hide it but didn't feel a need to alert the airline, either."

http://www.adn.com/626/story/382864.html

fingers 2 points 13 hours ago[-]



For some reason this rings true. I saw a photo of the baby held by some young woman and the person speaking (maybe it was something like Inside Edition or ET) saying it was Sarah Palin's grandchild, born with DS.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

The world is not overpopulated. People prefer to live crowded together. Ask the people in NY City if they think their population should be thinned out. Part of the charm of NYC is its huge population and all the hustle and bustle, all the activity, the shops and culture.

If all 6 billion people on the planet were given 1,000 square feet each, (size of the average single family home, and if the homes were stacked as apartments, it would free up even more space)-- did you realize that they all would fit very easily into the state of Texas (with over 1,300 billion square feet left over!).

* Texas has 262,015 square miles of land
* Which equals 7,304,558,976,000 square feet (262,015 x 27,878,400*) in Texas
* Each person gets 1,000 square feet of land
* Using world population stats from 1999 to make it easy -- 6 billion people
* 6 billion x 1,000 square feet per person equals 6,000,000,000,000 square feet needed

Square feet in Texas

Square feet needed for 6 billion people 7,304,558,976,000
(subtract)
6,000,000,000,000
Left over space

1,304,558,976,000 (ie PLENTY of room for parks, schools, hospitals, shopping malls, farms, anything you want.)

BTW, Texas is a small blip on the world map in case you are still in denial about the overpopulation lie.

This lie is used to justify engenics, war, murder and comes from the father of all lies, Satan himself, who would like to see every man, woman and child on the planet dead.

BTW, the eugencists who promote this Big Lie also happen to be Luciferians, devoute worshippers of Satan, each and every single one. This is a fact. People worry about the Christians; they should look around and see all the pagan edifices raised to the Babylonian gods , the Freemasonic halls, the statues and obelisks and murals in Washington honoring the pagan gods. Take note that almost every congressman is a Luciferian Freemason, Skull and Bonesman, or other devil worshipping secret society.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Now I know why McCain picked a radical anti-abortion female to run as veep. If you will all notice (and I am sure you have if you have been reading the previous posts) the election issues are already shifting from the economy, the illegal war, energy etc etc, to abortion. (which should not be a political issue but a moral issue). Lets get back to the issues that really will effect us and the country and not get wrapped up in a Rovian red-herring.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Saner, if only slightly, and a lot more solid than the "choices" offered by Feminists for Life -

To end unwanted pregnancies: After carefully securing and safely storing a bountiful quantity of each subject's sperm, sterilize each and every male upon his 12th birthday. When couples decide their ready to reproduce, they can just go to the bank!! Think about it....

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

When the Earth is completely overrun with humans and there are wars being fought over basic life necessities, abortions will be a court sentence for anyone who is not of the chosen few who becomes pregnant whether by accident or choice.

These right to life people only see human lives as important as they slash, pollute and develop what remains of the habitat for all other life forms. The center cannot hold. One day it will be clear even to them that we are all part of the web of life... ALL life... and that once a certain percentage of that web is gone, life as we know it will be gone forever. The ancients knew this but we killed them off because they didn't believe the myths and stories we use to justify what we do to the planet and to each other.

People just have no idea just how rare life like ours is in the universe. Just take a look at pictures from the surface of Mars or Venus to see how most planets turn out. If we try hard enough, we can achieve our own version of that here.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

I am always amazed at how quickly anti-abortionists can hijack a situation and stall it out. Are you capable of more than one thought at a time? Are you capable of asking intelligent, well thought out questions based on the needs of your nation? Or is your primary concern what a woman you don't know, or otherwise give a damn about...does with her womb?

This is about your future America! There is a great deal more at stake here than how many babies will be born...or not.

One more item on her agenda may be of interest to some of you:

"Congressional approval of responsible petroleum development in the coastal plain of Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR) - the most promising unexplored petroleum province in North America - would be of incalculable benefit to my state and our nation."

One question you might want to ask yourselves is, "who defines responsible?"

Get away from the abortion debate - it will never be won or lost! It's leading you the wrong way, causing the wrong questions to be asked, and stalling the most important election in history by keeping you focused on a non-issue.

For the record, I am pro-choice. Though an abortion is not an action I could ever take - I damn well refuse to tell another woman what she can, or cannot do with her own body. That decision needs to be well reasoned by those involved - not by some nosy next door neighbour with their own agenda.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

What a stupid, ill fated marketing scam.
First Women are the heart & soul of the Equal rights movement- BECAUSE WE GIVE BIRTH TO DIVERSITY!!!Boys/Girls, different races, religions, enthic backgrounds and sexual preferences- They are All 'Our Kids'.
Second, women have grown beyond merely voting for a politican because of their gender.These 'Feminist' are lost in a decades old phase.We're over it because we've seen some women who never deserved our support, who have played into stereotypes to gain an edge.
Who hasn't seen some woman use her 'wiles'to get her way.Fine at home, Bad if your at the Office.
LEVEL PLAYING FIELD is all we ask! No special exceptions, no unique Priviledges, no need to lower the bar,thank You!
I wouldn't vote in my mayor of 20,000 into the Govonorship of MI.And I certainly would not vote for him as a VP if he hadn't even finished his first term as Gov!!!
Our gender is required to be able to see bothsides and tell BS from truth. We're Mothers, by child birth and Just genetic pre disposition, most are caregivers,( some Nots so much!)
But if presented with 2 children 1 boy 1 girl, and the girl is crying because her brother pinched her...what is most mom's response...
'Why did you do that?' and he answers "She hit me in the head with a rock!" Why?" "Because.." until you get to the bottom of it...Who's in Trouble...WHOEVER started it!
We weave our way through diversion, deception, manipulation, breath holding and tantrums...WE are NOT Gullibable or decieved even if you put lipstick on it!
As for Abortion...Ladies lets work on not promoting unwanted preganacies to start with, by any and all means possible and support and assist women who do Choose (Pro Choice) to have a child.Planned Parenthood does help mothers with resource connections.And reserve the Term "Pro Life" for the definition which encompasses the entire spectrum and Span of LIFE.If we are truly compassionate beings we should be working so that no woman has to make the decision.FOCUS...END UNWANTED PREGNANCIES AND YOU END ABORTION!!Every child born should be granted, all essentials demanded by mere existence, all opportunities to survive & compete throughout their productive life, and be cared for and treated with dignity until their last breath!
Let's leave the very archiac term 'Feminist' back in the days when we came out swing, because we had no choice/voice. And update to the more accurate and inclusive term "Libber".
Women are the Majority Minority, let's start acting like it, Every persons life has touched & been touched by a Woman!
YOU WILL NOT DIVIDE UP THE WOMENS MOVEMENT LIKE YOU DID THE 'FAITHFUL'.If any group understands Tactics to suppress, oppress, dominate and deceive It is Women
They are not only Patronizing Us, they are revealing how little they know, or care to know, about what it is to be innately female.
I did not support Hillary because she was not my kind of candidate. But at least Hillary had qualifications which put her in the arena to compete.
To Mac' Handlers
Don't Yank Momma's chain, it just might Snap & BACKLASH!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

According to contemporary pro-life feminist Mary Krane Derr, “The debate raging over abortion today is not the first one in American history; there was one during the Victorian era.”

Derr writes that despite the large monetary loss involved, The Revolution, the suffragist paper put out by Susan B. Anthony and Elizabeth Cady Stanton refused to run ads for patent medicines because these were frequently thinly disguised abortifacients.

A similar policy was practiced by Woodhull’s and Claflin’s Weekly, the paper published by free love advocates Victoria Woodhull and Tennessee Claflin. The Weekly constantly attacked Madame Restell, a well known New York City abortionist. Victoria Woodhull, the first woman to attempt to run for president, was a fierce opponent of abortion. The Weekly (December 24, 1870) proclaimed, “The rights of children as individuals begin while yet they remain the foetus.”

According to Woodhull: “Men must no longer insult all womanhood by saying that freedom means the degradation of woman. Every woman knows that if she were free, she would never bear an unwished-for child, nor think of murdering one before its birth.” (Evening Standard, November 17, 1875)

“Victorian feminists,” Derr observes, “were highly critical of Victorian sexual ethics. They affirmed the value of sex for pleasure and communication as well as procreation, for men and women alike...they celebrated motherhood itself as a uniquely female power and strength which deserved genuine reverence.”

According to Derr, “From early in the 19th century, Americans—even lay people—were exposed to enough information about embryology to enable them to make a critical and ethically significant distinction between contraception and abortion: the former practice did not terminate a human life but the latter one did.”

In The Radical Remedy in Social Science (1886), feminist and civil libertarian Edward Bond Foote crusaded for public and legal acceptance of contraception, insisting it would not only promote the well-being of women, but that it would also reduce the destruction of unborn children, which he termed “a wastefulness of human life.”

Susan B. Anthony called abortion “child-murder” and insisted, “We want prevention, not merely punishment. We must reach the root of the evil...It is practiced by those whose inmost souls revolt from the dreadful deed.” Anthony recognized that one of the root causes of abortion was the male exploitation of women: “All the articles on this subject that I have read have been from men. They denounce women as alone guilty, and never include man in any plans for the remedy.” (The Revolution, July 8, 1869)

Like Susan B. Anthony, Matilda Gage also held men accountable: “(This) subject lies deeper down in woman’s wrongs than any other...I hesitate not to assert that most of (the responsibility for) this crime lies at the door of the male sex.” (The Revolution, April 9, 1868)

Elizabeth Cady Stanton classified abortion along with the killing of newborns as “infanticide.” (The Revolution, February 5, 1868) According to Stanton: “When we consider that women are treated as property, it is degrading to women that we should treat our children as property to be disposed of as we see fit.” (Letter to Julia Ward Howe, October 16, 1873)

Stanton not only opposed abortion, but recognized the social factors causing women to seek it: “There must be a remedy even for such a crying evil as this,” she wrote. “But where shall it be found, at least where begin, if not in the complete enfranchisement and elevation of women?” (The Revolution, March 12, 1868)

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Mattie Brinkerhoff also recognized that social factors such as poverty and discrimination cause women to seek abortions:

“When a man steals to satisfy hunger, we may safely conclude that there is something wrong in society—so when a woman destroys the life of her unborn child, it is an evidence that either by education or circumstances she has been greatly wronged...How shall we prevent this destruction of life and health? By the true education and independence of woman.” (The Revolution, September 2, 1869)

“Child murderers,” wrote Sarah Norton, “practice their profession without let or hindrance, and open infant butcheries unquestioned...Is there no remedy for all this ante-natal child murder?...Perhaps there will come a time when...an unmarried mother will not be despised because of her motherhood...and when the right of the unborn to be born will not be denied or interfered with.” (Woodhull and Claflin’s Weekly, November 19, 1870)

Even into the 20th century, feminists continued to oppose abortion as an injustice towards women rather than a means to their emancipation.

“The custom of procuring abortions has reached such appalling proportions in America as to be beyond belief...” wrote anarchist Emma Goldman in Mother Earth in 1911. “So great is the misery of the working classes that seventeen abortions are committed in every one hundred pregnancies.”

Alice Paul, the author of the original Equal Rights Amendment (ERA) in 1923, opposed the later trend of linking it with abortion rights. She insisted that “abortion is the ultimate exploitation of women.”

Whether for public relations purposes or her actual heartfelt feelings, Margaret Sanger, founder of the American Birth Control League (now known as Planned Parenthood), expressed opposition to abortion. She lamented the resort of poor people to “the most barbaric method” of family planning, “the killing of babies—infanticide—abortion.” (My Fight for Birth Control, 1931) Sanger told clients in her first birth control clinic that “abortion was the wrong way—no matter how early it was performed it was taking a life.” (An Autobiography, 1938)

Although Simone de Beauvoir supported the legalization of abortion, she described it as an injustice to women:

“Men tend to take abortion lightly; they...fail to realize the values involved. The woman who has recourse to abortion is disowning feminine values, her values...Women learn to believe no longer in what men say...the one thing they are sure of is this rifled and bleeding womb, these shreds of crimson life, this child that is not there.” (The Second Sex, 1952)

A 1972 Presidential commission on population growth recommended legalizing abortion, with only a few voices dissenting. One of those voices expressing opposition to legalized abortion was Graciela Olivarez, a Chicana active in civil rights and anti-poverty work. “The poor cry out for justice and equality,” she lamented, “and we respond with legalized abortion. I believe that in a society that permits the life of even one individual (born or unborn) to be dependent on whether that life is ‘wanted’ or not, all its citizens stand in danger...We do not have equal opportunities. Abortion is a cruel way out.”

In 1972, the National Organization for Women (NOW) expelled all its pro-life members in order to stifle dissent on the abortion issue. These pro-life feminists went on to form their own organization. Feminists For Life has chapters in the United States, Canada and New Zealand.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

She decided to have the child, knowing that it would be a downs baby BECAUSE~~~~~~~~~~
she KNEW it would get her the fundie-no rights for women crowd.
The kid is a political TOOL!!

Mcpain dumped his first wife for a younger bimbo-Windy Cindy.
Windy Cindy is getting old and beginning to sag & wrinkle.
This Bim Bo from I Da Ho is younger & better looking.

HMMMMMMMMMMMmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm!!!!!!!!!!!!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

in the right direction, asking the right questions, and helping you make an informed decision:

Pro-life. (Nov 2006)
Marriage only be between and man and a woman. (Nov 2006)
If legislature passed death penalty law, I would sign it. (Nov 2006)
Fund cellulosic biofuel research in Farm Bill. (Oct 2007)
Stranded Gas Development Act no longer applies. (Nov 2006)
Get ANWR open. (Arctic National Wildlife Refuge)(Nov 2006)
Provide stability in regulations for developers. (Jan 2007)
Convince the rest of the nation to open ANWR. (Jan 2007)
Supports Constitutional right to bear arms. (Nov 2006)
Flexibility in government regulations to allow competition. (Nov 2006)
Promote from within, in Alaska's National Guard. (Nov 2006)
Fund the Seniors Longevity Bonus Program. (Nov 2006)
Repeal "nuisance taxes" including the tire tax. (Jan 2007)

Dig up everything you can about each of those issues...compare the answers and see what you think. Spend a little energy to save a lot of heartache.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Pro-Life Feminism: Different Voices contains observations by numerous pro-life feminists on the subject of abortion. According to these pro-life feminists, abortion is not the answer to the problem of unwanted pregnancy, it is merely a band-aid which prevents real reforms from taking place regarding society’s treatment of women.

Susan Maronek writes:

“Abortion, in the final analysis, works to the advantage of the exploitative male, not for the female. It provides an end to any and all financial, legal or social obligation which comes with childbirth by eliminating the possibility of birth. Abortion provides the ultimate rationale when pressing for sexual favors. It makes the female a perpetual and re-usable sex object. When an unwanted pregnancy occurs, the female is potentially left without any social support...

“The male can remove himself from the situation, physically or mentally because abortion is ‘her’ right. The female is left with the sole and final legal responsibility for killing their offspring. It is her body
and mind which bear the scars of this destructive operation and experience... Abortion is a male sexual fantasy come true.”

Pregnancy and childbirth are natural. The ability to bear children is the one thing which truly distinguishes women from men. Demanding the right to abort in order to achieve equality implies women must become males in order to compete and survive in a man’s world. Rosemary Bottcher points out that abortion reduces women to the status of sex machines which can be “repaired,” if necessary. She refers to it as the “castration of women.”

“What we need now,” writes Jo McGowan, “is a race of woman who will stand up and say NO! The violence ends here. The misogyny ends here. The destruction of our children ends here. No longer will our bodies be used to write messages of fear and hatred. We hold within our bodies the power of creation, the power to nourish and sustain life. We shall not pervert these to serve death.”

“Abortion is the destruction of human life and energy that does nothing to eradicate the very real underlying problems of women,” writes Cecilia Voss Koch. “The pregnant welfare mother begs for decent housing, a decent job and childcare or respect for her child-nurturing work. Instead, she gets direction to the local abortion clinic and is told to take care of ‘her problem.’ How convenient. Much less time and trouble than teaching her about authentic reproductive freedom and reproductive responsibility. Much cheaper than attending to her real problems: her poverty, her lack of skills, her illiteracy, her loneliness, her bitterness about her entrapment, her self-contempt, her vulnerability. After the abortion, these problems will all be there...

“By encouraging society to consider a woman’s child as a disposable piece of property, aborting reinforces the image of woman herself as disposable property and reusable sex object—a renewable resource. It is no coincidence that the biggest single financial contributor to the cause of ‘abortion rights’ is the Playboy Foundation. When abortion is available to all women, all male responsibility for fertility control has been removed. A man need only offer a woman money for the abortion and that’s it: no responsibility, no relationship, no commitment. And there we are—recycled and used again!”

Feminist writer Mary Ann Schaefer refers to pro-abortion feminism as “terrorist feminism” because you have to be “willing to kill for the cause you believe in...”

“If women must submit to abortion to preserve their lifestyle or career, their economic or social status,” writes Daphne de Jong, “they are pandering to a system devised and run by men for male convenience.”

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Palin is a religious fanatic who will push her own agenda when McLame drops dead, like his father & grandfather early of a heart attack.
Biden is a self admitted Zionist.
vote Cynthia McKinney.
A real woman, and a real American.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Maybe he tried those little blue pills and Cindy isn't putting out.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

or does anyone else want to PUKE amid all this right-wing hypocrisy?!

- They're pro-life but condone war and the death penalty.
- They want abortion to be illegal but oppose any discussion of birth control.
- They claim to be Christian but then systematically reject the poor.
- They support free markets and pulling yourself up by your bootstraps, but only when their rich friends don't need a bailout.
- They champion fiscal responsibility but then drive our country into staggering debt.
- They claim to be patriotic but create policies that strip average working Americans of good jobs.
- And now, they're pro-family but support a woman who would leave her special needs infant behind simply for political gain.

It's so gross, I can't hardly think about it. Obama absolutely MUST win in November.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Thanks for this even-handed edifying piece. Particularly vexing is how the media uncritically adopts the "pro-life" label for the anti-choice movement, leaving any opponent to be called "pro abortion" or, by implication, "anti-life." The right, yet again, triumphs rhetorically and, arguably, will triumph in November for the following reasons: 1. vote fraud 2.racism 3. homophobia 4.anti-choice. In other words: we'll be snookered by voting technology, hatred of blacks, the conviction that gay marriage undermines heterosexual marriage, and a similar conviction that democrats want "to kill babies."

Yes, other antagonisms are relevant --- but these are what will be the major buttons to push by Rove and Co. I hope I am wrong in believing this time their tricks won't work, but the past still leaves me doubtful now that McCain has picked a trophy candidate as a mate.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Thanks for this even-handed edifying piece. Particularly vexing is how the media uncritically adopts the "pro-life" label for the anti-choice movement, leaving any opponent to be called "pro abortion" or, by implication, "anti-life." The right, yet again, triumphs rhetorically and, arguably, will triumph in November for the following reasons: 1. vote fraud 2.racism 3. homophobia 4.anti-choice. In other words: we'll be snookered by voting technology, hatred of blacks, the conviction that gay marriage undermines heterosexual marriage, and a similar conviction that democrats want "to kill babies."

Yes, other antagonisms are relevant --- but these are what will be the major buttons to push by Rove and Co. I hope I am wrong in believing this time their tricks won't work, but the past still leaves me doubtful now that McCain has picked a trophy candidate as a mate.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

I don't have a problem with Palin having her DS baby. Who could be against any woman doing that voluntarily? The problem I have with her is that she wants to kick down people's doors, interfere with doctor-patient confidentiality, and force women to carry on a with an unwanted pregnancy at the point of a gun. This is what so-called "pro life" people want, and most people are against this.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Let's see, if our track record for electing public officials is any hint, I'd say we're all pretty stupid. How could we have ended up with Bush - twice? How about Jeb and daddy Bush? What about the Iraq war, Afganistan, Iran...? Want to talk stupid, how about this: Feminists for Life tell women to go ahead and have that baby because they can just get food stamps and participate in the TANF (temporary assistance for needy families) program. Yeah, right! Seems not long ago we were trying to get people off those programs because women were having babies to get more welfare money. It is just these social programs that the republicans are attempting to get rid of. As soon as a politician says he'll give "tax cuts" people rush to the polls to vote for him/her. Particularly those that the tax cuts will hurt the most. They never stop to think about how this government and all these social services can exist without taxes. We don't need tax cuts, we need tax increases so we can fund our educational system and work toward national health care. Would be nice if the wealthy paid their fair share, I agree, but what politician would ever suggest such a thing? Certainly not one who wants to get elected. Always better to squeeze blood out of the turnip. How stupid are we? Take a look around. Our infrastructure is crumbling, our educational system is a disgrace, and this once great country provides medical care for those who have insurance or enough money to pay for health care, everyone else will die if they get seriously ill. I won't even mention the ridiculously high cost for medical care and prescription medications...what a joke. We are one of only two countries in the world that allows prescription medications to advertise and tell us to go talk to our doctor so we can get a new medication. A young mother shouldn't have to choose between college or baby. Having day care at the school is the least of the mother's concern. How will she pay to go to school? No doubt at all that she will have to go to work even with assistance. So, you tell me, how will a young mother raise a child, go to school, go to work, and still have some sort of life? Will she just get on welfare? Oh, sorry, forgot, welfare is one of those programs that the republicans want to do away with. They want to take your social security too. Stupid? Yeah, we're stupid. And I will give up on the U.S. as a total lost cause if we put McCain and Palin in the White House. One last question I have. We have enough abused and neglected children in this world. Shouldn't we start looking after them before we bring more unwanted children into this already over crowded world? What would we do with all the people if everyone stopped aborting unwanted pregnancies? My last comment - it's no one else's business whether I want to have a child or not. How dare you think that you have the right to tell me what I should do with my life. I don't like your church, do I have the right to force you to stop going because I think religious beliefs start wars?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Do pregnant women really have a choice over control of their bodies? The government has warnings on any kind of alcohol, drugs or smokes products for pregnant women. The pro abortion arguement that the gov cannot tell women what to do with their bodies goes out the window with the example I just gave. Its the weakest arguement for abortion.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

There is nothing new in this language that we have been hearing for ages and that always works miracles (of the wrong kind.)
No Child Left Behind! Operation Iraqi Freedom! Feminists Pro Life!
Attack, debunk, the language itself, too.
Intelligent Design is not intelligent and it is not design!
Debunk "pro-life" and other deceiving notions. Everyday and everywhere.
Say it, repeat it, spread it. If we keep speaking the liar's language, we are in the lie, we are the lie.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

I have heard NO reference to ANY education beyond what is assumed to be High School. Where did she go to college? What did she major in? Did she graduate? If so, why does she still believe in creation theory? And while we're at it, does she NOT believe in birth control of any kind? Does she, as a 'Feminist for Life' believe that birth control pills are the same as abortion (like President Bush and his recent attempts to have this belief signed into law without consulting Congress or the American People) and therefore murder; AND thus, would she seek to make birth control pills illegal???? Does she think a fertilized egg is a person???? If so, does that mean that a women who has a miscarriage, is a murderer???? Can a fertilized egg have a social security number? Can I deduct a potentially fertilized egg, even if I don't know if I actually have one, as a dependent for tax purposes???? These Christ-Fascist types have a lot of 'splainin' to do.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

I have heard NO reference to ANY education beyond what is assumed to be High School. Where did she go to college? What did she major in? Did she graduate? If so, why does she still believe in creation theory? And while we're at it, does she NOT believe in birth control of any kind? Does she, as a 'Feminist for Life' believe that birth control pills are the same as abortion (like President Bush and his recent attempts to have this belief signed into law without consulting Congress or the American People) and therefore murder; AND thus, would she seek to make birth control pills illegal???? Does she think a fertilized egg is a person???? If so, does that mean that a women who has a miscarriage, is a murderer???? Can a fertilized egg have a social security number? Can I deduct a potentially fertilized egg, even if I don't know if I actually have one, as a dependent for tax purposes???? These Christo-Fascist Religionist types in Gov't have a lot of 'splainin' to do.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Part 2, Cont'd from above.

Interestingly enough, not one of the RR's(Religious Rights) ever say why they care only about the fetus and not a damn for the living, either children or adults. What exactly is their fetus fantasy all about, and why do they never explain it. Is it because their convoluted explanations will NOT stand up to the light of day. Methinks that is exactly the case.

Given the endless uproar over the past eight years that the Bush family and Bush Repubs have been controlling America why is there never an explanation of there fetus love, other than that this is really all about Republican party politics, and nothing more.

Is all of this hate for us and love for the fetus based on an explanation that is so embarrassing that they don't like to reveal their ideas. My guess is that for the very few who may have an explanation that it is so convoluted and involutional that it takes a Ph.D. in Theology to give that explanation. That it is an explanation that Jesus would not understand, because Jesus never spoke to such issues, because these issues all stem from man-made religion, quasi religion.

If any of them can offer an explanation I'll bet there is no redneck that can explain it. The next time you are in a southern state just ask some redneck farmer why he cares so much about someone else's fetus, especially that of an inner city black mother. Then just sit back and listen. My guess is that none of them will be able to explain their fetus love. That's because this is not about any fetus, it is all and only about Not Paying Taxes, and Republican party politics, the politics of the south, the politics of hate.

And now the RR's, the religious Right is part of that core of hate. Southerners hate to pay taxes and the RR's hate anyone who they deem to be supportive of abortion. Does anyone actually think that were the abortion issue to go away they will stop the hate. I'll bet not. I'll bet they, the GOP, will find another issue to use for their politics of hate, the politics that keep them in power.

So exactly why are the Dems, us center lefters always getting attacked for somehow being anti life when it is we who are the people who are far more willing to pay taxes for the betterment of our fellow citizens, including the pregnant poor.

As for example throughout the City of Cleveland there are Community Centers that , among other things, provide health care services to pregnant inner city mothers. And the Repugs just hate that, they call it social engineering.

And yet they hate us for that because they call it welfare and socialism. And they just hate socialism because it threatens business and business profits because they do not make any money at it. I can guarantee that if they made profit from such activity they would be all for it. Just as soon as they can profitize it they will suddenly support it.

In all reality this is nothing more than Rovian/Bush Republican party political rhetoric and endless bullshit to cover up for their real motives, their profit motives. Just as this war on terror is nothing more than their cover up for their stealing of Iraqi oil.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

when democrats start caring about income choice.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

From the Wikipedia entry on Palin:

She gave birth to Trig on April 18, 2008, while in office as governor. Though she announced that she was pregnant only during the start of her third trimester and one month before Trig was born, her pregnancy is reported to have surprised Alaskans, including her staff.[88] After her water broke, on the day of Trig's delivery, Palin delivered a keynote address in Texas and then flew 8 hours to Alaska.[89] She returned to the office three days after delivering the child.


Ok, how the hell, do you FLY for 8 hours after your water breaks, for your FIFTH child? Anyone who's had more than one or two children will tell you, they come faster the more you have - normally, of course there are always exceptions to the rule. And if she was 7mos pregnant with a child known to have a handicap, not to mention the fact that ANY mother over 35 is considered high risk - WHAT doctor in their right mind would tell her it was OK to fly or even travel at all?!?!??

Oh PLEASE Obama supporters - pass it on, start a Rove-ian smear campaign - now GO!

Here's a repost of the links from cherylholmes above:

Link 1

Link 2

Link 3

Link 4

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

The facts of life are that Downs is more likely to occur as a woman gets older:

"Recent data also suggest that paternal age, especially beyond 42, also increases the risk of Down Syndrome manifesting in pregnancies in older mothers." (See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Downs_syndrome#Incidence)

So what Palin did is kind of like having a child with a first cousin. It turns out to have some genetic disorder, and the mother then uses this pregnancy to make a political point about being "pro-life". "Look at me, I'm so magnanimous for having a baby with a genetic disorder," says Palin. Irresponsible is more like it.

I'm not saying outlaw women over, say, 42, from breeding. Having freedom means having the right to not take care of yourself properly and to act irresponsibly, like having a downs baby at age 44, and then using the baby as a political football.

But I have to wonder just what the hell is going on here? What is a prominent professional woman in this day and age doing having a child at age 44, after having four other children already? Hello, but the era of "Little House On The Prairie" is over. Here we are in the wealthiest, most technologically advanced nation in the modern world, and yet you have people going about their lives as if we were still stuck in the 19th century.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

"She's not prepared to be governor; how can she be prepared to be vice
president or president?" said state Senate President Lyda Green, a
Wasilla Republican who told the Anchorage Daily News that she at first
thought news of Palin's selection was a joke.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Militant Islam better watch it: there is only one demographic group more vicious and more hell-bent on keeping their comfort zone comfortable, and that is van-driving soccer mums. These women will kick more ass than cranky old white guys, I can assure you. The Republicans are very wise to mobilise this base, because this base will dropkick medieval islam into outer space.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

AlterNet Readers,

I live and work as a conservationist / field guide in southern Alaska. I know Sarah Palin. And, while I disagree with much of her politics (and I won't vote for the McCain / Palin ticket), I say, Sarah Palin does not deserve, in any way, the vicious, misogynist abuse she's receiving on this web page. Disagree with her politics, debate her on the issues, discuss alternatives and educate her towards a better way ... of course! But, why insult, denigrate and demonize Sarah Palin simply for having ideas that differ from your own?

Sarah Palin is a sincere, honest human being. For instance, she investigated the "old boy network" of her own corrupt political party here in Alaska and exposed their dirty deals. After that, many Alaskans were so impressed with her integrity they urged her to run for governor. She did. She won. Even Tony Knowles, her 2006 opponent, admires and respects Sarah Palin.

Yes, Sarah earned a degree from a minor university, but a lifetime spent in Alaska has been her real teacher. And, it's true, Sarah Palin has small-town - not small-minded - Alaskan values. She's an outdoors woman. She's a devoted mother with strong convictions about her family. She's a person that wants to see other people succeed in their chosen endeavors through hard-work, dedication and responsibility. No, Sarah Palin is not cynical, blindly ambitious or world-weary and sometimes her optimistic opinions do seem a bit wishful and naive.

It's true, Sarah Palin is an attractive, middle-age woman, a hunter and she does ride snowmachines. Believe me, Sarah Palin is tough, smart, well-spoken and completely capable of being the Vice President or even the President of the United States if the time comes.

I suspect when Sarah Palin debates the ruthless, arrogant Joe Biden, many of you will end up cheering for Sarah Palin.

Best regards ....

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

...This is an incredible insult to most American women. Just how stupid does he think we are?

This was the EXACT feeling from the women at a political picnic I attended yesterday.

Earlie that day my own 93 year old mother said that she thinks .."any woman dumb enough to vote for McCain because he chose Palin was probably dumb enough to vote for him anyway...so it probably won't matter."

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

But yeah. The party will never look at this as the symptom. Like Nader, they'll have to find something to blame. Listen, they're not "Pro-life" as they claim. If the Democrats were populists, these rightwing motherfuckers would be bust by now !! When will you people get it ?!?!?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

the 'CHANGE' CANDIDATE???
obama did not have the cojones to put Hillary but McCain has looked outside the box, outside the "Broken" Washington Obama promised to change but picked the Old old old same of the Old old old Washington....Biden in the "Broken Washington" for 36 years!
Good for McCain, a fresh change, a woman, governor, very tallented and knowledgeable who will prove to be the change we are all looking for! Goodby Mr. No change and just BS

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

"Where have all the real men gone?"

'Top American columnist Kathleen Parker is causing a furore with her new book SAVE THE MALES, in which she argues that feminism has neutered men and deprived them of their noble, protective role in society'

I know. Saving the males is an unlikely vocation for a 21st-century woman. Most men don’t know they need saving; most women consider the idea absurd. When I tell my women friends that I want to save the males, they look at me as if noticing for the first time that I am insane. Then they say something like: “Are you out of your mind? This is still a male-dominated world. It’s women who need saving. Screw the men!”

Actually, that’s a direct quote. The reality is that men already have been screwed – and not in the way they prefer. For the past 30 years or so, males have been under siege by a culture that too often embraces the notion that men are to blame for all of life’s ills. Males as a group – not random men – are bad by virtue of their DNA.

While women have been cast as victims, martyrs, mystics or saints, men have quietly retreated into their caves, the better to muffle emotions that fluctuate between hilarity (are these bitches crazy or what?) and rage (yes, they are and they’ve got our kids).

In the process of fashioning a more female-friendly world, we have created a culture that is hostile towards males, contemptuous of masculinity and cynical about the delightful differences that make men irresistible, especially when something goes bump in the night.

In popular culture, rare is the man portrayed as wise, strong and noble. In film and music, men are variously portrayed as dolts, bullies, brutes, deadbeats, rapists, sexual predators and wife-beaters. Even otherwise easy-going family men in sitcoms are invariably cast as, at best, bumbling, dim-witted fools. One would assume from most depictions that the smart, decent man who cares about his family and pats the neighbour’s dog is the exception rather than the rule.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Why is it that you always equate feminism with killing babies? You say you believe in "choice", but inevitably you excoriate anyone who claims to beleive in feminism and wants to "choose" to give birth to live babies. It appears that the only choice the radical feminists believe in is the choice to kill babies. And that is what abortion really is.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

I, too, wondered how she could travel for 8 hours after her water broke. Bur it is a myth that the more babies one has the faster the labor and delivery. I had five, and the labor and delivery times decreased for the first three, then became longer with the fourth and fifth.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

because it has mostly been Republicans meanies who favor denying health care on the basis of bank accounts and they always blather about socialized medicine when ever a Democrat wants to expand health coverage.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

On the network news tonight, they asked some of the RNC delegates what they thought about Palin's pregnant 17-year-old. The first person they asked said, "I think it's great that she's decided to have the baby."

Not "decided to KEEP the baby" but to "HAVE" the baby.

Huh? It sounds to me like this RNCer is happy as hell to call it a "decision" when it is one of their own, but very likely would prefer to take this "decision" away from every other young woman. Of course, even if Roe v Wade is overturned, the daughters of the wealthy and well-connected will be able to choose whatever course of action they please.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

take the fun out of dysfunctional!

Phala

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

see http://www.opm.gov/oca/compmemo/2008/2008-01.asp

Sarah Palin is in this fiasco for the money!

She is just the latest in a long-line of self-aggrandizing, avaricious, hypocrites that abound within the GOP. She knowingly and willingly volunteered herself and her family to be used as shills by a group of people whose incomprehensible individual values and unconscionable social positions I abhor.

However, I, for one, refuse to allow my taxpayer dollars to be used to support this incompetent opportunist or further reward this obscenely greedy and mercenary segment of society.

She has lived off the fruits of hard-working taxpayers too long. For the last six years, the Alaskan people have paid her bills. I see no difference between her and any other of the "low-life, valley trash 'welfare' mothers" she so self-righteously and un-empathically dehumanizes.

I challenge Sarah Palin here and now. Refute my assertions and demonstrate to America that you're not just an extrordinarily lust-driven, user-taker - refuse to accept any compensation for the privilege of being allowed to serve our great nation and pay your family's exorbitant medical expenses out of your own pocket! Because, frankly my dear, I'll be compelled to break your thieving, grasping fingers if you try to dip into mine.

Through our taxpayer dollars, we the American people will be statutorily forced to pay her pension and her family's (and future generations of its ill-begotten grandchildren) medical care and support services.

If by some cruel and twisted travesty of fate, the GOP prevails, I will immediately implement my plan to remove my wealth and influence from this mordant, impotent, and immoral disintegrating American society.

And, with recent passage (07/30/08) by Congress of H.R. 5938, created specifically to amend Title 18 in the US Code so as to now provide secret service protection to former Vice Presidents, we'll continue to pay both for Cheney's and her future safety! Search THOMAS on the Library of Congress website for more information on H.R. 5938.

ENOUGH ALREADY!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

doesn't make her fit to lead!

Phala

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

its actually impossible for the government to take away a womans right to choose. Women have been falling down stairs for ages, among other tricks to force miscarriage. Morally it shouldn't make a difference. I admit it takes more work, but christ its your mistake, deal with it yourself! I'm just worried. Worried that the fanaticisms and focus given to this issue, in teaching children that these kinds of decisions are completely under their control,is part of the reason why the American sociopath is on the rise. Its one in twenty five now people. One in twenty five children secretly has no conscious and can do anything to anyone for any reason without a twinge of guilt. That is frightening. Also most young people i know and even plenty of mothers i have known and in fact a general cultural feeling i seem to recognize is that most people do not like other peoples children. Especially men. In fact killing other peoples children has been part of the big invade and conquer game plan for well ever as far as anthropologists can figure. Kill the babies, rape the women. Plant your seed. So women are we being duped by men again? Who are the women always cited as needing the "protection" from those wanting to take away their right to abort? the answer is poor inner city women. The same people used over and over again for political careers, that are sent more food stamps occasionally but hardly ever offered any true inclusion in society. Do children need guicci bags and ipods? no. they need food love and school. My mother was 21 had me and lived with my father in dirty grimmy poverty. Ive turned out fine. Being poor didn't keep me from reading all the books i could get my hands on, but you know what neither of my parents read for pleasure. All people are different and thats okay. All those myths of American success and what it is or isn't is all camouflage. But Ive gotten off on a tangent. Really though whats up here? I personally don't believe that humanity has changed more of its impulses and fears (especially men) in the last thirty years than it has in the last say 10,000. Wake up women. They are a bunch of elitists in suits who try to distract you with the colors of the rainbow, when really they hate your poor, lower class children and want them dead...and it doesn't hurt any that now they have a legal way of bullying the women they seduce and prey upon into cleaning up their messes for them.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Sarah’s comparing herself to a pit bull wasn’t cuts. Pitbulls are vicious...banned in many cities...and are notorious for attacking innocent children. Is this the real Sarah Palin?
You bet, but she aint cute!!! Check out pitbullattack.wordpress.com

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]