Young Writers Society

gyrfalcon wrote:

She opposes a woman's right to choose.

(Disclaimer: knowing practically nothing else about her): This alone would make me okay with her; I'm pro-life, and it's pretty much my only non-negotiable political standard (i.e. pro-choicers are automatically not going to get my vote, no matter how great they otherwise are).

If it makes any difference to you, Sarah Palin also stands against abortion in those cases of rape and incest. Rape is a situation where the mother had no choice in the matter. Frankly, it's cruel to expect a woman to give birth in that circumstance when an abortion can prevent it.

lifenews.com wrote:Keenan is upset because Palin also opposes abortions in very rare cases of rape or incest and she complained that "Palin is also a member of the anti-choice group Feminists for Life."

It's hard enough riding a pro-life ticket these days, but allowing no choice even in these extremem circumstances? I don't want to meet the person who can defend that.

Gadi. wrote:McCain hit a homerun by picking a young, inexperienced but executive female. After all, most of the undecided voters at the moment are women.

Really? Do you regard women as being so closed-minded as to blindly vote for someone on the basis of their gender?

Gadi. wrote:And do you really think that she ruined Alaska?

I have to concur with Professor Rabbit. She came in, destroyed Juneau's chance at a road leading out, which would have created an economical boon. She supported the 1998 Alaskan ban against gay marriage. She promoted ANWR drilling and is pushing to not have the polar bear be regarded as endangered... she's basically in the pocket of big oil.

Bittersweet wrote:I think she's actually quite experienced. She's been a mayor, a governor, and something with the word 'council' in it that escapes me.... To be honest, she sounds more experienced than Obama, who has only been a senator, what, a hundred and something days? That's kind of a no-no. VP should SO not be more experienced than a potential president, even if she's not Obama's running mate.

I don't think experience is necessarily an issue; after all, I trust Obama in the face of his own "inexperience." However, your logic is somewhat faulty. Sarah may have served longer than Obama, but Sarah's experience is as mayor of Wasilla and governor of Alaska. I've heard it described as "Sim City on Easy Mode," and as an Alaskan, I have to agree. Obama, on the other hand, is a senator. That's where the real heavy decision making happens anyway.

Bittersweet wrote:Like me mum says: "I'm voting against Obama, not because I like McCain, but because old is better than stupid."

No doubt that McCain is old. Out of touch, one might say. He's shown time and again that he has no context for the modern economy nor the state of our military actions: scary for a leader who wishes to continue warring in a time of economic crisis for our country.

Snoink wrote:I thought John McCain was going to pick a weenie rino instead of an awesome conservative. But no! Total switcharoo! The conservative base is THRILLED to have her, and why not? She's a real maverick.

So, wait, is Palin an awesome conservative or a maverick? I mean, if she really is a maverick, then there must be something wrong with the institution (the GOP) that requires rebelling against. So she'd have to break the conservative mold.

Bittersweet wrote:It's all just what the people want.

So we should vote for someone who won't give us what we want? I for one am tired of leaders who think they have a mandate to do whatever they want.

Bittersweet wrote:Obama doesn't seem proud enough of America to be the president. All he talks about is how bad we are. What about the good things?

Obama is doing what every leader should do; he's identifying what is wrong with America and promising to do his part to fix it. Unlike that guy who just drove us further into debt and war.

Nate wrote:YWS is a great example of this; did Biden get talked about here? Has anyone even mentioned Obama's acceptance speech? Yet, how many people are talking about Palin?

Oh, believe me, people were talking about Biden and the Democratic National Convention. It's been a huge celebration of hope and possibility. Yes, today we are talking about Palin. Biden was yesterday's news, Palin's is today's. I don't know why it wasn't covered in YWS; I suspect it's an issue of demographic. After all, the person who brought up the Palin thing is anti-Palin, so it would be argued this wouldn't receive any attention at all if we didn't have a handful of members who were... paying attention.

Moriarty ->> This topic is not in the Debate forum, so please do not start debating with others here. If you wish to pick a bone with others and try to start fights despite only being a member of the site for a few days, go ahead. But do it in the proper venue. Not here.

The debate forum is at:
viewgroup.php?f=13

Gadi. wrote:

McCain hit a homerun by picking a young, inexperienced but executive female. After all, most of the undecided voters at the moment are women.


Really? Do you regard women as being so closed-minded as to blindly vote for someone on the basis of their gender

I totally agree with you and I discard this comment. Women, however, are more likely to vote for other women, as Hillary demonstrated.

I love you, Gadi, but no. XD A bad leader is a bad leader, no matter what shape their body is.

Well, I'm sold on McCain - Palin:

GACK. I am stumped again. I just checked it. Women aren't more likely to vote for other women because of their gender.


Blehhh.

Nate wrote:Well, I'm sold on McCain - Palin:

...where is that picture from? XD

(And also! The GOP is not very conservative... it's quite sad. Whatever!)

I have no idea. A friend of mine e-mailed it to me.

Of course, this does mean that McCain is a cylon...

Hahaha Nate. I hope McCain wouldn't lead like Colonel Tigh.

Yes, Gadi, women voting for women because they're women?


Gender means nothing to me. If I disagree with you, I plain disagree with you. I even disagree with 2/3rds of my best friends, all of whom are female. I probably wouldn't vote for most of them, if they were presidential candidates, even though I love them dearly. (Sorry, my friends!)

Haha yeah. I thought about it. And it's true--the actual idea of women voting for other women because they're themselves women is sort of degrading. Sorry about that.

So, I mean, if McCain thought that picking a woman would help him gain more female votes, well then, it's bad news for him.

Gadi, you completely missed the point. McCain isn't trying to get women to vote for Palin because she's a woman -- he's trying to get men to vote for her because she's a total babe.

DUH.

Pork

The McCain-Palin and Tigh-Roslin comparison just keeps getting better:

http://tighroslin.com/

I agree with Tigh's sensible energy policy:

Saul Tigh minces no words when it comes to energy usage: "Gods dammit, cut back or you won't have any energy at all! The Cylons will have it all!" Enough said.

Yes, Gadi, women voting for women because they're women?

Third-wave feminists would do it if it weren't for McCain...

McCain chose Palin as a political stunt. Outside of the state of Alaska, clearly, she's inexperienced. It disheartens me that McCain would put his own political interests above the country's. A scary thought, I must say and surely no chance at getting my vote anymore.