O'Reilly "not sure" if Palin wants to overturn Roe v. Wade -- but she recently said it "should" be reversed
SUMMARY: On his Fox News program, Bill O'Reilly stated that he is "not sure" whether Gov. Sarah Palin "wants to overturn Roe v. Wade." In fact, during her interview with ABC News' Charles Gibson last week, Palin said that Roe v. Wade "should" be reversed.
During the "Culture Warriors" segment on the September 18 edition of Fox News' The O'Reilly Factor, host Bill O'Reilly stated, "[I]f I interview Sarah Palin, obviously I'm going to ask her this, whether she wants to overturn Roe v. Wade. I'm not sure whether she does or not. I've never heard her say that." In fact, during her September 12 interview with ABC News anchor Charles Gibson, Palin stated that Roe v. Wade "should" be overturned. Gibson asked Palin: "Roe v. Wade: You think it should be reversed?" Palin responded: "I think it should, and I think that states should be able to decide that issue." During the interview, Gibson also asked: "[Sen.] John McCain would allow abortion in cases of rape and incest. Do you believe in it only in the case where the life of the mother is in danger?" Palin replied: "That is my personal opinion."
During the O'Reilly Factor segment, which featured Fox News contributor Margaret Hoover, O'Reilly also said of Palin: "But while she governed Alaska, she wasn't some anti-abortion zealot in the sense of pushing very tough state laws. I mean, she's obviously pro-life, and that's her opinion. And she is an American, and she reflects half the country that is pro-life. And so, we're not supposed to have anybody pro-life, Margaret, in any position of power, even though half of the country is pro-life. That's absurd. That's fascism."
From the September 18 edition of Fox News' The O'Reilly Factor:
O'REILLY: But the hysteria is such that, while she governed Alaska -- now, if I interview Sarah Palin, obviously I'm going to ask her this, whether she wants to overturn Roe v. Wade. I'm not sure whether she does or not. I've never heard her say that.
But while she governed Alaska, she wasn't some anti-abortion zealot in the sense of pushing very tough state laws. I mean, she's obviously pro-life, and that's her opinion. And she is an American, and she reflects half the country that is pro-life. And so, we're not supposed to have anybody pro-life, Margaret, in any position of power, even though half of the country is pro-life. That's absurd. That's fascism.
Does this bozo ever watch the news? He must be the only person in Amercian who's not sure about her Roe stance. It's the only reason she's even on the ticket!
Sadly, I think there are a lot of people who listen to Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity and Bill O'Reilly as their source for "news"...the line between news and commentary being nonexistent in their minds. If you listen to these commentators and hear the misinformation they spew you can only conclude that they are not as knowledgable as they profess and/or they are liars.
Hey, she's also a hockey mom who likes mooseburgers!
And she spies on Vladimir Putin with her binoculars... ;>)
Hello?
Where's the "misinformation" here?
O'Reilly said he "wasn't sure." Are we now faulting O'Reilly for not knowing every position on every single issue of every candidate? Please ...
Is this yet another slow day at MM?
A pretty weak post by MM, IMHO.
Isn't this a big issue? Shouldn't someone who does this for a living be familiar with her views on abortion?
It makes it sound as if there's some mystery as to what she believes, and as if it's not something she's very serious about. Obviously anyone who is against abortion even for rape and incest cases takes this issue seriously and opposes Roe v. Wade.
"Obviously anyone who is against abortion even for rape and incest cases takes this issue seriously"
You got that right. That's why I hope McCain wins. The country needs a normal thinking president who will overturn (hopefully) the RvW case that brought into our nation abortion as a method of birth control. If you were serious about wanting abortion available for rape and incest you would ask for it. But, instead you liberals constantly demand ALL abortions be legal. What kind of IDIOT would demand ALL abortions be legal when all they want are abortions for rape and incest? I guess those people DO NOT take the issue seriously either!!
If he doesn;t know what he's talking about then he should pour himself a hot, steaming cup of shut the f--- up. For better or worse, his audience views him as a valid and authoritative source of information. While that is laughable in and of itself, it definitely serves as MISINFORMATION if he suggests that her views are somehow unclear. They are not. She had made them quite clear. To suggest otherwise IS misinformation. Ignorance is no excuse, even if is your only excuse.
Exactly right. If he's not lying for some odd reason, BO's got to be incredibly lazy. All it takes is to use The Google thing entering the words "Palin" and "abortion" and you immediately see "She views abortion as unjustified except when the life of the ..."
Hi?
Oh, honestly--the front man for Fox goes on the air, admits he’s “not sure” about an issue, but goes ahead and talks about it anyway, and then accuses the other side of fascism--and you don’t see the misinformation?
Bill-O had an easy out here. He only had to say that neither the President or the Vice President have the power to overturn Roe v. Wade. It’s an issue for the Supreme Court alone to decide.
Of course, that’s not on the official Fox script. All their loyal puppies have to keep painting Palin as a “maverick.” When facing an issue that hints at her being just another NeoCon--well, they’re “not sure” about that.
Geez Bill-O, how hard it is for you to Google?
-- When facing an issue that hints at her being just another NeoCon -- MidnightWriter
From the non-liberal Conservapedia:
-- Neoconservatives often take libertarian positions on social issues, and are unlikely to agree with religious conservatives on issues like abortion...In anticipation of vacancies on the U.S. Supreme Court, the neoconservatives urged the selection of Michael Luttig, who declared Roe v. Wade to be "super-stare decisis" --
The Conservapedia is talking about the same Michael Luttig who reinstated Virginia's Partial Birth Abortion Ban, are they not?
Granted, he did indeed write that Roe v. Wade is a super-stare decisis. He also wrote an opinion striking down the Violence Against Women Act, has been a supporter of the Death Penalty and worked to get Clarence Thomas on the Supreme Court.
Please keep in mind that the Conservapedia is the rights answer to Wikipedia which they found to be too liberal, too anti-Christian, too anti-American. Just like Wikipedia it’s hardly an infallible source. Yes, it says that NeoCons are more libertarian on choice issues, but honestly, how many people actually buy that?
"O'Reilly said he "wasn't sure." Are we now faulting O'Reilly for not knowing every position on every single issue of every candidate? Please ..."
No Shoes...... the reason this is here is because Billy has proven over and over again that he has no regard for woman... but since the party he carries water for decided to put up a purely unqualified woman in a position to potentially be the number two for this country.... suddenly... BillO is a defender of women.... only it's not all women... just rightwing ideologs that are are horendously unqualified for the job... remember his treatement of Hillary's qualifications.... nuff said!
Hey...... I like this new format that MMfA has provided us! Now if only they would allow us to make 'edits' on posts after the fact?
You honestly think he's "not sure" of her stance on RvW?
Cmon...
Shoes,
Her position on Roe v. Wade is one of the main reasons she's on the ticket; O'Reilly definitely knows what her position is. Once again, he's lying. Once again, you're being intellectually dishonest.
One more time. He didn't manage to get the obligatory Hitler reference in there but its implied. People voting against a candidate based on her views? Yep, that's certainly fascist!
Half the country is not in favor of rejecting Roe V Wade. We should not have someone who supports the rejection of a well-founded legal opinion based upon their personal religious beliefs in higher office.
BB,
Thanks for the Friday laugh. It is a joke that Roe v Wade is a well founded legal opinion.
ps. Is there any difference between personal religious beliefs and non-religious personal beliefs?
Is there any difference between personal religious beliefs and non-religious personal beliefs? - AA
With regard to public policy, yes there is. If you can produce a secular reason why something should be public policy AND enough others agree with it AND it doesn't violate the Constitution or anyone's rights, those personal beliefs could be made into public policy.
If the only reasons you can find for a policy are religious, you can use those beliefs as a guide to your own life, but they should not become public policy.
Those with with religious beliefs have every right to frame public policy based on their religious beliefs...just like liberal or conservative beliefs or any other beliefs. That public policy will then be enacted or fail for lack of support.
If enacted, it must be deemed constitutional, by the Supreme Court if necessary...as provided in that wonderful old document...the Constitution.
The Constitution speaks to the prohibition of any state sponsored religion...and each individuals right to worship how ever they choose...not the rejection of any public policy framed by religious beliefs.
That's a really good response, Wes. Well done.
I'm Snoopy, and I approve this message. ;)
Thanks for the nice Friday afternoon sendoff...Headed out the door for a couple (or maybe more) of adult beverages at the old watering hole...
The Saudis frame public policy by religious beliefs. They call it sharia.
Do you live in Saudi Arabia? Then why are you worried about how another country runs it's own business? And, that is a perfect example of why the US does not want state sponsored religion.
I repeat, if there is no secular reason that can be made for a policy, it should not become law. No law should be based solely on religious writings or teachings. To do so WOULD be the same as instituting a state sponsored religion.
As I said, public policy should only be based on non-religious reasoning. I never want to see a law instituted primarily because of something proclaimed in the bible, koran or any other basis of any other religion. To do so would be incredibly un-American. If it's a religious teaching, go ahead and live your life by it, but don't ever try to force any other American to do so.
-- public policy should only be based on non-religious reasoning -- billj
I agree that a law enacted solely for religious reasons would violate the constitution...as state sponsored religion.
But you cannot take away anyone's right to their own personal beliefs...religious or otherwise. And those rights are constitutionally guaranteed and perfectly accectable for use in "framing" public policy...and that differs from "public policy solely based on religion".
Secularism has no higher perch than religion concerning the debate and enactment of public policy.
You have no right to reject anyone's religious doctrines with a law based solely on secularist beliefs. That, my friend, would be a violation of ones constitutional rights.
"Secularism has no higher perch than religion concerning the debate and enactment of public policy."
<!-- /* Font Definitions */ @font-face {font-family:"Cambria Math"; panose-1:2 4 5 3 5 4 6 3 2 4; mso-font-charset:1; mso-generic-font-family:roman; mso-font-format:other; mso-font-pitch:variable; mso-font-signature:0 0 0 0 0 0;} @font-face {font-family:Calibri; panose-1:2 15 5 2 2 2 4 3 2 4; mso-font-charset:0; mso-generic-font-family:swiss; mso-font-pitch:variable; mso-font-signature:-1610611985 1073750139 0 0 159 0;} /* Style Definitions */ p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal {mso-style-unhide:no; mso-style-qformat:yes; mso-style-parent:""; margin-top:0in; margin-right:0in; margin-bottom:10.0pt; margin-left:0in; line-height:115%; mso-pagination:widow-orphan; font-size:11.0pt; font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif"; mso-ascii-font-family:Calibri; mso-ascii-theme-font:minor-latin; mso-fareast-font-family:Calibri; mso-fareast-theme-font:minor-latin; mso-hansi-font-family:Calibri; mso-hansi-theme-font:minor-latin; mso-bidi-font-family:"Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-theme-font:minor-bidi;} .MsoChpDefault {mso-style-type:export-only; mso-default-props:yes; mso-ascii-font-family:Calibri; mso-ascii-theme-font:minor-latin; mso-fareast-font-family:Calibri; mso-fareast-theme-font:minor-latin; mso-hansi-font-family:Calibri; mso-hansi-theme-font:minor-latin; mso-bidi-font-family:"Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-theme-font:minor-bidi;} .MsoPapDefault {mso-style-type:export-only; margin-bottom:10.0pt; line-height:115%;} @page Section1 {size:8.5in 11.0in; margin:1.0in 1.0in 1.0in 1.0in; mso-header-margin:.5in; mso-footer-margin:.5in; mso-paper-source:0;} div.Section1 {page:Section1;} -->
I think it does because, for the most part, secularism does not trespass on the beliefs of others. Take the thread's topic for example. Secularists believe it is a woman's choice to maintain or terminate a pregnancy. She makes the determination herself and is not forced to act in a way that is undesirable to her or that undermines her beliefs. On the other hand, the fundamentalist position on abortion is to force women to act in a way that may be undesirable to her or undermines her beliefs.
" Secularists believe it is a woman's choice to maintain or terminate a pregnancy. She makes the determination herself and is not forced to act in a way that is undesirable to her or that undermines her beliefs. On the other hand, the fundamentalist position on abortion is to force women to act in a way that may be undesirable to her or undermines her beliefs."
Uhh, that can easily be changed around so that your meaning of that phrase could include child abusers. A secularist may believe it is a persons choice who they screw by making the determination that they are free to screw anyone they choose because that's their belief. A fundamentalist may believe that only adults should be in the business of screwing because that is their beliefs. If you mean that the child abuser can not abuse children because some think it is abhorent in someone's religion, then child abusers should be allowed to abuse children. Is that the basic meaning of your statement? That some women want to kill babies because they believe it is ok, while other people feel killing babies is against God's will, so you enact a law that allows killing babies because God has no place in our society??
So, what you're saying is that some women can make choices based on their beliefs, but some women cannot make choices based on their beliefs?
I agree that a law enacted solely for religious reasons would violate the constitution...as state sponsored religion. - Wesley
That's a secular position
But you cannot take away anyone's right to their own personal beliefs...religious or otherwise. - Wesley
That's a secular position
Secularism has no higher perch than religion concerning the debate and enactment of public policy.
- WesleyIt certainly does. Can you point to a single American law that is non-secular in nature? As long as it's not based on religion or another superstitious, non-natural basis, it's secular in nature. Please provide me with a single example otherwise?
You have no right to reject anyone's religious doctrines with a law based solely on secularist beliefs. - Wesley
I didn't even hint at doing that in anything I wrote. There's a big difference between rejecting someone's religious doctrines and allowing public policy to be made based on those doctrines. The first is a matter of personal freedom and the second is an imposition on others of those religious doctrines.
Basing laws entirely on secularist principles isn't a violation of Constitutional rights; it's the very essence of Constitutional principles.
Bill,
Who decides what is a secular reason or a religious reason for a policy?
Is the following, "We're dedicated to the proposition that all people are created equal and endowed by our Creator with inalienable rights." based on a religious reason?
If it is not, is it secular?
If it is, according to you it should not become public policy.
There is no law based on the Declaration of Independence. It served a different purpose. Interestingly, those aspects of it that were eventually incorporated into law had a secular basis. They were not founded in any religious writings or teachings.
Of course there were...as you just stated "aspects of it that were eventually incorporated into law".
The constitution is not a secularist document...nor is it a religious document. It has tenets of both beliefs.
The debate has raged about the religous or non-religious beliefs of the founding fathers. But the unarguable fact is that many, many of the founding fathers were religious men who used their personal religious beliefs as a basis for their arguments in establishing our country's constitutional rights...and that is perfectly acceptable...and constitutional.
But the unarguable fact is that many, many of the founding fathers were religious men who used their personal religious beliefs as a basis for their arguments in establishing our country's constitutional rights. - Wesley
Got an example? What parts of the Constitution are based on religious principles and not secular principles? I find the US Constitution to be entirely secular.
How about slavery? Isn't the abolishment of slavery a religious edict? Does religion teach that ALL men are created equal? Then we can go to women's rights. Aren't those based on the same religious edict? That all are equal in the eyes of God, and all should be equal to each other in our nation.
The Bible condones slavery.
Even if it was a religious edict, there's a secular reasoning behind it, therefore it's not a religious law. There's no matter of faith that is required there. Laws about how you can't buy liquor on Sundays are religious, because there's absolutely no secular reasoning behind that.
"If the only reasons you can find for a policy are religious, you can use those beliefs as a guide to your own life, but they should not become public policy."
Obviously there are societal reasons to say that all people are created equal and have inalienable rights as well, therefore your example fails. Same sort of thing for laws against theft. It says "thou shalt not steal", but obviously it can be public policy because there's also a secular reason to enforce it.
And, THAT is what he asked!! WHO decides what is a secular reason and what is a religious reason? Obviously, you didn't catch that part of his statement, it was only at the beginning. So... WHO decides whether a law is based on religion or not? What basis do they make that decision on...religious or secular? WHO makes the decision about that decision? And so on and so on.
Why can't you people just accept that the government DOES NOT force you to be a certain religion. ACCEPT the fact that is the extent of the purpose of seperation of church and state.
If there's a secular reason for the law, then it's a valid law. This sort of thing isn't hard to determine.
The government can't discriminate against people who aren't religious either. Laws that are based on faith do exactly that.
I know. I'm always amazed by righties that throw out that phrase from the Declaration of Independence. They don't seem to realize that the Declaration, and the Constitution are two separate things. The Constitution, the law of the land, only mentions religion twice. Both in the negative. As in "no religious tests for elected office", and no intermingling of religion and state. If the founding Fathers had wanted the country to be a "Christian" country, it would've been easy enough to do. They would've just declared it. The fact that they didn't, and went to the extra effort to make sure there was NO state religion speaks pretty loudly to the idea that this is a Secular nation. Religious beliefs have no place in our legal frame work. If someone tries to make laws based on religious belif, that is unconstitutional.
-- Religious beliefs have no place in our legal frame work. --peebs
Of course they do...and they did. Following is an open letter from congress to "all inhabitants of the United States of America"...May 1778
--Three years have now passed away since the commencement of the present war...The sweets of a free commerce with every part of the earth will soon reimburse you for all the losses you have sustained...
It is to obtain these things that we call for your strenuous, unremitted exertions. Yet do not believe that you have been, or can be saved, merely by your own strength. No! it is by the assistance of Heaven, and this you must assiduously cultivate, by acts which Heaven approves. Thus shall the power and the happiness of these sovereign, free, and independent states, founded on the virtue of their citizens, increase, extend, and endure, until the Almighty shall blot out all the empires of the earth...
RESOLVED, that it be recommended to Ministers of the Gospel, of all denominations, to read, or cause to be read, immediately after divine service, the above address to the inhabitants of the United States of America, in their respective churches and chapels, and other places of religious worship.
Published by order of Congress --
That's your reply to that little segment you took from peebs? Just how did that little snippet from history fit into our country's legal framework? It's little different from Bush urging the people of this country to give our troops their prayers. It's a bit of personal opinion, but has no standing as law. Even the bit you cited from the Continental Congress was merely a recommedation, with no legal authority or foundation.
You guys might as well accept facts. A number of our country's founders might well have been religious men (though fewer were christians than many think) but what they created was a country based on secular principles. Isn't that great?
It's all about selective hearing and memory and we all know Billo the clown is a master at both!
During a vicious polar bear attack while working on her snow machine in 1996, Sarah Palin's prescription safety glasses were knocked from her face rendering her virtually blind as the bloodthirsty beast readied for a final, fatal blow. Using only her exceptional hearing and memories of a story told to her in a bar by a Yukon fur trader when she was 2 years old, she grabbed the third finger of his massive left paw as he pounced, the most sensitive pressure point known on a polar bear. With him now in her disabling grasp, the snarling ursine was quickly subdued, and his pelt now does duty as a warm and stylish comforter on the bed of a needy Aleutian native.
I guess Bill O'Reilly missed that part of the Republican's VP selection's first-ever interview. That is odd considering his line of work. What's even odder is that he's "not sure" whether or not a candidate - who believes that victims of rape and incest must, if impregnated as a result of the violent act, bring the fetus to term - would be ok with Roe v. Wade.
This is a woman who makes victims of rape pay for their own rape investigation kits. That fact tells you alot about what she thinks about women's rights.
Agreed. It also demonstrates that Bill O'Reilly is just not paying attention to what the candidates are saying and what their demonstrated positions are on the issues.
Snoop, Do you have a link?
you... are... lazy...
http://www.frontiersman.com/articles/2000/05/23/news.txt
Maybe not lazy, maybe hungry. I thought he was asking Snoop for some sausage.
Gov,
Thanks... for... the... link but apparently you did not read the article. There is no mention of Palin in the article.
Who was the mayor of Wasilla when the article was written?
What does that prove?
Look for the word "Wasilla" in the article.
Good lord, here. Pick any one of the 290,000 links. I'm sure you will find enough proof, though I'm pretty much expecting you to dismiss it because many of them say the police chief of Wasilla (who palin appointed) objected to the state law. Even though as Mayor she had to know the state law, end even if she could claim lack of knowledge the fact that she didn't object to it, I'm pretty sure I know how you're gonna respond...
Snoop,
Apparently you are not able to support your claim. Have a good weekend.
Here's a good one for you.
It's amazing how ignorant you want to play. I just gave you 290,000 pieces of supporting evidence and you instantly reject all of them. No wonder the Col and several other posters here are tired of discussing anything with you. You really are some partisan piece of work.
No wonder the Col and several other posters here are tired of discussing anything with you.
Actually, used to have a lot of fun putting the clown shoes on Barney, he just got too scared to respond to me. It's not very rewarding trying to have an adult discussion with him (as evidenced by his declaring victory here because other posters didn't dumb things down or connect the dots enough for him to understand), but if you point out AA's stoopidity often enough, he puts you on his "meanie list" and then you can just make jokes about him without having to scroll past his whiny comments.
Here, I'll even play this game on your turf.
The defense seems to be that emergency contraception is murder. But we're talking about rape here. Does any rational person think that rape victims should have to give birth because of the difference between prevention of fertilization and preventing implantation of a fertilized embryo?
Any woman who feels that strongly about it can refuse contraception if they like. Other women having to pay money in order to investigate their own rapes is utterly unacceptable.
It's hard to believe O'Reilly is that ignorant. Everyone who's looked into Palin at all should have found out her views on this subject.
He does not care what they say or do unless they’re sitting down with him for an interview.
That is odd considering his line of work.(Gov)
That's what always cracks me up about these clowns. This is supposedly their livelihood, being informed about these topics, they're constantly telling their audience what a one-stop source they are, but when it's convenient, they just "don't know" the most obvious stuff.
this guys is so stupid it makes my teeth hurt.
" even though half of the country is pro-life. That's absurd. That's fascism."
fascism is simply when the government entities and private concerns merge. haliburton anyone? even the D.M.V. talking directly to your insurance company after you've had a ticket. he jst pulls these 'key words' out of his backside and bandies them about like he knows what he's talking about. fool. amateur. or both.
ultra,
When the government entities and private concerns merge, I'd argue that it is socialism. And it looks like we're headed down that road with bailouts.
Bill O can read Mrs. Obama's "angry" thoughts but he can't decipher Gov. Palin's extreme stance on abortion.
Exactly. Good example.
Gov,
Why do you say Palin's stance on abortion is extreme?
Because it is.
Gov,
Your post only shouts that you do not have anything to back up your statement.
Have a good weekend.
Barney, I think the only thing that Gov's post "shouted" was that he's bored of spoon-feeding you tedious explanations of what should be obvious to anybody over the age of three. Do you ever try to think anything through for yourself? I know I've said it before, but you're really like a toddler, and this isn't a day care center.
How many people think women should be forced to give birth out of rape and incest? Are you really going to argue that this is in the mainstream?
Brab,
The position that all life is sacred is pretty mainstream among right to lifers.
Killing unborn babies through abortion, is in my view, very extreme.
"Among right-to-lifers". That's an interesting qualifier. Not to carry the analogy too far, but that's like saying that racism is mainstream among KKK members.
What percentage of Americans believe women who are raped should be forced to give birth? That's the question.
Brab,
Even if you take out my qualifier of right-to-lifers, Roman Catholics and Evangelicals Protestants and many others believe all life is sacred beginning at conception. They are hardly extremists and constitute a large percentage of people in America.
Killing babies through abortion is extreme. Wanting them to live is not.
"This ambivalence is reflected in opinions on the overall availability of abortion. About a third (35%) say abortion should be generally available, but 23% favor stricter limits on abortion and 31% favor making it illegal except in cases of rape, incest or to save a woman's life. Only about one-in-ten (9%) say abortion should never be permitted. Moreover, while nearly six-in-ten (59%) think it would be a good thing to reduce the number of abortions in the U.S., one-third (33%) say they don't feel this way"
That number might be a little higher, since it's not clear if that includes the life of the mother. If you have more recent numbers, I'd like to see them as well. Still, that's a pretty low starting point to work with. This is what defines extremism, not your personal viewpoint.
AA said "Killing babies through abortion is extreme. Wanting them to live is not. "
AA is the poster child for insanity - you know, doing the same thing over and over again, thinking the results will change.
Like saying that abortions kill babies.
They don't. Abortions are a medical procedure that removes a fetus, not a baby, from a woman's body, and ends her pregnancy. It's the burden of pregnancy (and yes, for many, pregnancy is not a burden, and if it's not, then I'm all for allowing them the choice to continue the pregnancy - that's what pro-choice is all about) on the woman which can be removed by allowing her to have an abortion that's the issue.
Anyone else's religious beliefs about when life starts are not relevant to this discussion, since we don't base our laws upon religious beliefs!
Pro-choice people want every baby that is a wanted child to be born. We don't want women to be forced to have their wombs encumbered by a fetus if they don't want to remain pregnant. Women are not inanimate incubators who don't get to control their own bodies!
This is an incredibly weak and transparent attempt to try and make Carabou Barbie more palatable to Pro-choice women.Its both sad and funny at the same time.
Disingenous? How so?
He probably meant that in reply to Shoes.
Sarah Palin the most knowledgeable person in the nation, perhaps the world on energy speaking on energy:
Today, the person who "knows more about energy than probably anyone else in the United States of America" let slip some pearls of wisdom:
You can argue that, AA, but you'd be wrong.
"Socialism" could more properly be characterized as when government replaces private concerns with itself.
What ultra was talking about (and I suspect you know this) is the point at which government's purpose merges with the interests of private business. Better?
arch,
By your definition we have been a fascist country since the days of "What is good for GM is good for the Country". '
My point is that the fascist definition provided by ultra is too simplistic and leaves out many of the other dimensions that make up fascism.
Not that I agree completely with the definition by Wikopedia, I do believe it shows that a lot more goes into fascism than the simple definition by ultra, which in of itself is so nebulous as to be meaningless.
Fascism is a term used to describe totalitarian nationalist political ideologies or mass movements that are concerned with notions of cultural decline or decadence and seek to achieve a millenarian national rebirth by exalting most commonly the nation state but in some cases the race, and promoting unity, strength and cultural renewal.[1][2][3][4][5]
Various scholars attribute different characteristics to fascism, but the following elements are usually seen as its integral parts: nationalism, corporativism, militarism, totalitarianism, populism, collectivism, statism, dictatorship, and economic planning. Fascism opposes communism, democracy, liberalism, and conservatism (taking into account that fascists made alliances with conservatives more often than other groups).[6][2][1][7][8][9][10]
Some authors reject broad usage of the term or exclude certain parties and regimes.[11] Following the defeat of the Axis powers in World War II, there have been few self-proclaimed fascist groups and individuals. In contemporary political discourse, the term fascist is often used by adherents of some ideologies as a pejorative description of their opponents.
I thought that was the Bush Doctrine. j/k;)
fascism |ˈfa sh ˌizəm| (also Fascism)nounan authoritarian and nationalistic right-wing system of government and social organization.• (in general use) extreme right-wing, authoritarian, or intolerant views or practice.
must now dismount my high horse. i'll be back later when i recover...
The Decline and Fall of Sarah Palin
THE DECLINE AND FALL OF SARAH PALIN....The Sarah Palin chickens are coming home to roost, and I'm here to crow about it:
The clear lesson from all this: more people should listen to me! Spread the word.
Mother Jones, Kevin Drum
Stay tuned for the media to pull out all the stops to boost McCain/Palin numbers.
Here's one on their writings that soundly debunks your comment. with 21 references to Almighty God in one resolution:
RESOLVED,
THAT it be recommended to the several States to appoint the First Thursday in May next to be a Day of Fasting, Humiliation, and Prayer to Almighty God, that he will be pleased to avert those impending Calamities which we have but too well deserved: That he will grant us his Grace to repent of our Sins, and amend our Lives according to his Holy Word: That he will continue that wonderful Protection which hath led us through the Paths of Danger and Distress: That he will be a Husband to the Widow, and a Father to the fatherless Children, who weep over the Barbarities of a Savage Enemy: That he will grant us Patience in Suffering, and Fortitude in Adversity: That he will inspire us with Humility, Moderation, and Gratitude in prosperous Circumstances: That he will give Wisdom to our Councils, Firmness to our Resolutions, and Victory to our Arms: That he will bless the Labours of the Husbandman, and pour forth Abundance, so that we may enjoy the Fruits of the Earth in due Season: That he will cause Union, Harmony, and mutual Confidence to prevail throughout these States: That he will bestow on our great Ally all those Blessings which may enable him to be gloriously instrumental in protecting the Rights of Mankind, and promoting the Happiness of his Subjects: That he will bountifully continue his paternal Care to the Commander in Chief, and the Officers and Soldiers of the United States: That he will grant the Blessings of Peace to all contending Nations, Freedom to those who are in Bondage, and Comfort to the Afflicted: That he will diffuse Useful Knowledge, extend the Influence of True Religion, and give us that Peace of Mind which the World cannot give: That he will be our Shield in the Day of Battle, our Comforter in the Hour of Death, and our kind Parent and merciful Judge through Time and through Eternity.
Done in CONGRESS, this Twentieth Day of March, in the Year of Our Lord One Thousand Seven Hundred and Seventy-Nine, and in the Third Year of our Independence.
JOHN JAY, President.
I see your Resolution and raise it with a snippet from a document that came along eight years later. . .
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion. . ."
Mark THIS! If Sarah Palin believes that Roe vs Wade "should" be reversed, she wants to see it reversed and will help McCain pack the Supreme Court to do so. We already have a bunch of right-wingers sitting on the bench. A couple more just might do the trick. What better way (actually the ONLY way) to get your wack-o religious ideas into the private lives of citizens than having your very own Supreme Court. It is their job to interpret (subvert) the Constitution as they see fit. If some true believers in the tree spirit or some other fairy tale decide what "family values" really are, what's to stop them. If Sarah Palin believes in "God's will", then God Help US!
First of all under a mcain/palin gov she wont be invading the private lives of citezens. She has said clearly that the states should decide what they want to do. Second if you want to talk about invading lives take a look at obama's brilliant plan to raise taxes on just about everything. It's amazing that he actually thinks he knows about the economy. And thats just on taxes I cant even think about all the social programs that he wants to do. If that isn't invadinh lives then i dont know what is.