skycop 0 #26 September 29, 2008 The right seems to be getting increasingly embarrassed about Palin. I guess you just wish she'd go away. Quote I have some doubts (as I do with EVERY candidate). We'll see how she does this week against Joe Biden. I have a sinking feeling she will be debating the female moderator (can't remember her name) as much as Biden. Overall she's done pretty well, considering the outright distain shown by two out of three of her media interviewers. "Just 'cause I'm simple, don't mean I'm stewpid!" Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites kallend 2,147 #27 September 29, 2008 QuoteThe right seems to be getting increasingly embarrassed about Palin. I guess you just wish she'd go away. Quote I have some doubts (as I do with EVERY candidate). We'll see how she does this week against Joe Biden. I have a sinking feeling she will be debating the female moderator (can't remember her name) as much as Biden. Overall she's done pretty well, considering the outright distain shown by two out of three of her media interviewers. Well, the interviewers are, after all, used to interviewing knowledgeable people so I expect Sarah came as a bit of a shock.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites kallend 2,147 #28 September 29, 2008 QuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteA much more plausible explanation is that Wasilla police changed their policy sometime between the time Governor Knowles signed the law, and when it actually went into effect. Then provide the proof. With the small army of media whores that have descended on the town, they can't find ONE person that was charged? . Weaseling and Lame. Just having the rule on the books indicates Palin's policy. PROVE IT!!!! You stated yourself that the policy was enforced by the Wasilla police, and I've shown that the police chief was appointed under Palin. So what EXACTLY are you disputing?... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites mnealtx 0 #29 September 29, 2008 QuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteA much more plausible explanation is that Wasilla police changed their policy sometime between the time Governor Knowles signed the law, and when it actually went into effect. Then provide the proof. With the small army of media whores that have descended on the town, they can't find ONE person that was charged? . Weaseling and Lame. Just having the rule on the books indicates Palin's policy. PROVE IT!!!! You stated yourself that the policy was enforced by the Wasilla police, and I've shown that the police chief was appointed under Palin. So what EXACTLY are you disputing? Incorrect - reread my post. I stated that the charge would have come from the police department. As a point of fact, documents show that the reverse happened and the police department PAID. Since you keep asserting that it is Palin's policy, provide documents under her signature proving it - or admit you're wrong. (BTW, that goes for the 'bearing a rapist baby' smear, as well - provide the paper).Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites kallend 2,147 #30 September 29, 2008 QuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteA much more plausible explanation is that Wasilla police changed their policy sometime between the time Governor Knowles signed the law, and when it actually went into effect. Then provide the proof. With the small army of media whores that have descended on the town, they can't find ONE person that was charged? . Weaseling and Lame. Just having the rule on the books indicates Palin's policy. PROVE IT!!!! You stated yourself that the policy was enforced by the Wasilla police, and I've shown that the police chief was appointed under Palin. So what EXACTLY are you disputing? Incorrect - reread my post. I stated that the charge would have come from the police department. As a point of fact, documents show that the reverse happened and the police department PAID. Documents? One document. One time, AFTER a bill outlawing the practice was passed in the legislature. Quote Since you keep asserting that it is Palin's policy, provide documents under her signature proving it - or admit you're wrong. (BTW, that goes for the 'bearing a rapist baby' smear, as well - provide the paper). SO unless it's in writing it doesn't exist? Palin's interviews on TV don't exist for you. Well, check out the GOP 2008 party platform, that's in writing. "We support a human life amendment to the Constitution, and we endorse legislation to make clear that the Fourteenth Amendment’s protections apply to unborn children." NO exceptions for rape and incest.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites jcd11235 0 #31 September 29, 2008 QuoteThen provide the proof. If you don't understand the math well enough, that's your own problem. QuoteQuoteNot at all. Why would Wasilla be mentioned specifically in the minutes? It was statewide legislature that was being discussed, not anything that singled Wasilla out. That Croft was motivated, in part, by Wasilla's policy wouldn't have changed that any. Ah, I see - so Wasilia's policy was SO important that Croft had to submit the bill to the legislature, but NOT so important as to be mentioned in the minutes of the discussion. Yes, but since Wasilla was not the only municipality with such a policy, it would be even less likely the name would come up in the minutes. The bill's sponsor even said what motivated him to propose the bill.Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites mnealtx 0 #32 September 29, 2008 QuoteQuoteThen provide the proof. If you don't understand the math well enough, that's your own problem. Your ad hominem attack neither impresses me nor improves your argument. Provide the proof. QuoteQuoteAh, I see - so Wasilia's policy was SO important that Croft had to submit the bill to the legislature, but NOT so important as to be mentioned in the minutes of the discussion. Yes, but since Wasilla was not the only municipality with such a policy, it would be even less likely the name would come up in the minutes. The bill's sponsor even said what motivated him to propose the bill. So what? If Wasilia was such a problem, why didn't Croft mention it along with Anchorage in the meeting? All you have is suspicion and rumor - if you want to convince me (or anyone), show me some PROOF. A politician making a statement 8 years after the fact doesn't constitute proof - it constitutes taking a cheap shot to turf out someone from the opposing party.Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites mnealtx 0 #33 September 29, 2008 QuoteWell, check out the GOP 2008 party platform, that's in writing. "We support a human life amendment to the Constitution, and we endorse legislation to make clear that the Fourteenth Amendment’s protections apply to unborn children." NO exceptions for rape and incest. *yawn* Let me know when the modification to the amendment goes to the voters and I'll worry about it. Until then, why don't you ask the good Senator why his committee killed a bill to provide care to babies that survive an abortion attempt?Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites billvon 3,112 #34 September 29, 2008 >A politician making a statement 8 years after the fact doesn't constitute proof - >it constitutes taking a cheap shot to turf out someone from the opposing party. Oh, admit it, Mike. If this were about Obama you'd be hyperventilating over the "biased liberal media's refusal to investigate these crimes against women by Obama." The whole thing is a non-issue. The right wing's ever more shrill and panicked denials that she had NO connection - NONE WHATSOEVER - with the issue is just keeping it in the spotlight. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites kallend 2,147 #35 September 29, 2008 QuoteQuoteWell, check out the GOP 2008 party platform, that's in writing. "We support a human life amendment to the Constitution, and we endorse legislation to make clear that the Fourteenth Amendment’s protections apply to unborn children." NO exceptions for rape and incest. *yawn* Hard to deny your own party's published platform, isn't it, even if you deny Sarah's video statement where she says the exact same thing. Do you agree with Sarah Palin that rapists should be allowed to select the mothers of their children?... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites mnealtx 0 #36 September 29, 2008 QuoteQuoteQuoteWell, check out the GOP 2008 party platform, that's in writing. "We support a human life amendment to the Constitution, and we endorse legislation to make clear that the Fourteenth Amendment’s protections apply to unborn children." NO exceptions for rape and incest. *yawn* Hard to deny your own party's published platform, isn't it, even if you deny Sarah's video statement where she says the exact same thing. Do you think rapists should be allowed to select the mothers of their children, like Sarah does? Again - show me the bills with her signature - THEN I'll worry about itMike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Fast 0 #37 September 29, 2008 QuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteWell, check out the GOP 2008 party platform, that's in writing. "We support a human life amendment to the Constitution, and we endorse legislation to make clear that the Fourteenth Amendment’s protections apply to unborn children." NO exceptions for rape and incest. *yawn* Hard to deny your own party's published platform, isn't it, even if you deny Sarah's video statement where she says the exact same thing. Do you think rapists should be allowed to select the mothers of their children, like Sarah does? Again - show me the bills with her signature - THEN I'll worry about it Sounds to me like you ran out of logical arguments and are no longer able to support your position.~D Where troubles melt like lemon drops Away above the chimney tops That's where you'll find me. Swooping is taking one last poke at the bear before escaping it's cave - davelepka Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites kallend 2,147 #38 September 29, 2008 QuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteWell, check out the GOP 2008 party platform, that's in writing. "We support a human life amendment to the Constitution, and we endorse legislation to make clear that the Fourteenth Amendment’s protections apply to unborn children." NO exceptions for rape and incest. *yawn* Hard to deny your own party's published platform, isn't it, even if you deny Sarah's video statement where she says the exact same thing. Do you think rapists should be allowed to select the mothers of their children, like Sarah does? Again - show me the bills with her signature - THEN I'll worry about it it's an easy question - YOU CAN DO IT! Do you think rapists should have the right to select the (involuntary) mothers of their children? Yes or No, Mike?... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites mnealtx 0 #39 September 29, 2008 QuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteWell, check out the GOP 2008 party platform, that's in writing. "We support a human life amendment to the Constitution, and we endorse legislation to make clear that the Fourteenth Amendment’s protections apply to unborn children." NO exceptions for rape and incest. *yawn* Hard to deny your own party's published platform, isn't it, even if you deny Sarah's video statement where she says the exact same thing. Do you think rapists should be allowed to select the mothers of their children, like Sarah does? Again - show me the bills with her signature - THEN I'll worry about it Sounds to me like you ran out of logical arguments and are no longer able to support your position. Nope - it means that I'll believe it when I see the bills to make it happen. Try again.Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites mnealtx 0 #40 September 29, 2008 QuoteAgain - show me the bills with her signature - THEN I'll worry about it it's an easy question - YOU CAN DO IT! Do you think rapists should have the right to select the (involuntary) mothers of their children? Yes or No, Mike? I think rapists should be shot before they ever get their pants down. Now - if you're done with your "are you still beating your wife" questioning, let me know when a bill saying that actually hits Congress and I'll worry.Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites jcd11235 0 #41 September 29, 2008 QuoteYour ad hominem attack neither impresses me nor improves your argument. Provide the proof. Compare the amount Wasilla's (then) police chief estimated the new legislation would cost with the amount in your attached document. Why don't they come close to matching? QuoteSo what? If Wasilia was such a problem, why didn't Croft mention it along with Anchorage in the meeting? All you have is suspicion and rumor - if you want to convince me (or anyone), show me some PROOF. Only suspicion and rumor? You must have missed the part in the cited article where Croft explicitly stated that Wasilla's policy was among the motivator's to propose the bill. We have zero reason to believe that Wasilla would have or should have been mentioned in the minutes, despite being a reason for the legislation. Your demand for documented proof why the city wasn't mentioned is absurd.Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites kallend 2,147 #42 September 29, 2008 QuoteQuoteAgain - show me the bills with her signature - THEN I'll worry about it it's an easy question - YOU CAN DO IT! Do you think rapists should have the right to select the (involuntary) mothers of their children? Yes or No, Mike? I think rapists should be shot before they ever get their pants down. Now - if you're done with your "are you still beating your wife" questioning, let me know when a bill saying that actually hits Congress and I'll worry. Dodge and weave. Can't answer the question honestly, can you? In post #42 it was all a "smear". Now, presented with proof, all you can do is evade the question.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,147 #27 September 29, 2008 QuoteThe right seems to be getting increasingly embarrassed about Palin. I guess you just wish she'd go away. Quote I have some doubts (as I do with EVERY candidate). We'll see how she does this week against Joe Biden. I have a sinking feeling she will be debating the female moderator (can't remember her name) as much as Biden. Overall she's done pretty well, considering the outright distain shown by two out of three of her media interviewers. Well, the interviewers are, after all, used to interviewing knowledgeable people so I expect Sarah came as a bit of a shock.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites kallend 2,147 #28 September 29, 2008 QuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteA much more plausible explanation is that Wasilla police changed their policy sometime between the time Governor Knowles signed the law, and when it actually went into effect. Then provide the proof. With the small army of media whores that have descended on the town, they can't find ONE person that was charged? . Weaseling and Lame. Just having the rule on the books indicates Palin's policy. PROVE IT!!!! You stated yourself that the policy was enforced by the Wasilla police, and I've shown that the police chief was appointed under Palin. So what EXACTLY are you disputing?... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites mnealtx 0 #29 September 29, 2008 QuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteA much more plausible explanation is that Wasilla police changed their policy sometime between the time Governor Knowles signed the law, and when it actually went into effect. Then provide the proof. With the small army of media whores that have descended on the town, they can't find ONE person that was charged? . Weaseling and Lame. Just having the rule on the books indicates Palin's policy. PROVE IT!!!! You stated yourself that the policy was enforced by the Wasilla police, and I've shown that the police chief was appointed under Palin. So what EXACTLY are you disputing? Incorrect - reread my post. I stated that the charge would have come from the police department. As a point of fact, documents show that the reverse happened and the police department PAID. Since you keep asserting that it is Palin's policy, provide documents under her signature proving it - or admit you're wrong. (BTW, that goes for the 'bearing a rapist baby' smear, as well - provide the paper).Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites kallend 2,147 #30 September 29, 2008 QuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteA much more plausible explanation is that Wasilla police changed their policy sometime between the time Governor Knowles signed the law, and when it actually went into effect. Then provide the proof. With the small army of media whores that have descended on the town, they can't find ONE person that was charged? . Weaseling and Lame. Just having the rule on the books indicates Palin's policy. PROVE IT!!!! You stated yourself that the policy was enforced by the Wasilla police, and I've shown that the police chief was appointed under Palin. So what EXACTLY are you disputing? Incorrect - reread my post. I stated that the charge would have come from the police department. As a point of fact, documents show that the reverse happened and the police department PAID. Documents? One document. One time, AFTER a bill outlawing the practice was passed in the legislature. Quote Since you keep asserting that it is Palin's policy, provide documents under her signature proving it - or admit you're wrong. (BTW, that goes for the 'bearing a rapist baby' smear, as well - provide the paper). SO unless it's in writing it doesn't exist? Palin's interviews on TV don't exist for you. Well, check out the GOP 2008 party platform, that's in writing. "We support a human life amendment to the Constitution, and we endorse legislation to make clear that the Fourteenth Amendment’s protections apply to unborn children." NO exceptions for rape and incest.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites jcd11235 0 #31 September 29, 2008 QuoteThen provide the proof. If you don't understand the math well enough, that's your own problem. QuoteQuoteNot at all. Why would Wasilla be mentioned specifically in the minutes? It was statewide legislature that was being discussed, not anything that singled Wasilla out. That Croft was motivated, in part, by Wasilla's policy wouldn't have changed that any. Ah, I see - so Wasilia's policy was SO important that Croft had to submit the bill to the legislature, but NOT so important as to be mentioned in the minutes of the discussion. Yes, but since Wasilla was not the only municipality with such a policy, it would be even less likely the name would come up in the minutes. The bill's sponsor even said what motivated him to propose the bill.Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites mnealtx 0 #32 September 29, 2008 QuoteQuoteThen provide the proof. If you don't understand the math well enough, that's your own problem. Your ad hominem attack neither impresses me nor improves your argument. Provide the proof. QuoteQuoteAh, I see - so Wasilia's policy was SO important that Croft had to submit the bill to the legislature, but NOT so important as to be mentioned in the minutes of the discussion. Yes, but since Wasilla was not the only municipality with such a policy, it would be even less likely the name would come up in the minutes. The bill's sponsor even said what motivated him to propose the bill. So what? If Wasilia was such a problem, why didn't Croft mention it along with Anchorage in the meeting? All you have is suspicion and rumor - if you want to convince me (or anyone), show me some PROOF. A politician making a statement 8 years after the fact doesn't constitute proof - it constitutes taking a cheap shot to turf out someone from the opposing party.Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites mnealtx 0 #33 September 29, 2008 QuoteWell, check out the GOP 2008 party platform, that's in writing. "We support a human life amendment to the Constitution, and we endorse legislation to make clear that the Fourteenth Amendment’s protections apply to unborn children." NO exceptions for rape and incest. *yawn* Let me know when the modification to the amendment goes to the voters and I'll worry about it. Until then, why don't you ask the good Senator why his committee killed a bill to provide care to babies that survive an abortion attempt?Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites billvon 3,112 #34 September 29, 2008 >A politician making a statement 8 years after the fact doesn't constitute proof - >it constitutes taking a cheap shot to turf out someone from the opposing party. Oh, admit it, Mike. If this were about Obama you'd be hyperventilating over the "biased liberal media's refusal to investigate these crimes against women by Obama." The whole thing is a non-issue. The right wing's ever more shrill and panicked denials that she had NO connection - NONE WHATSOEVER - with the issue is just keeping it in the spotlight. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites kallend 2,147 #35 September 29, 2008 QuoteQuoteWell, check out the GOP 2008 party platform, that's in writing. "We support a human life amendment to the Constitution, and we endorse legislation to make clear that the Fourteenth Amendment’s protections apply to unborn children." NO exceptions for rape and incest. *yawn* Hard to deny your own party's published platform, isn't it, even if you deny Sarah's video statement where she says the exact same thing. Do you agree with Sarah Palin that rapists should be allowed to select the mothers of their children?... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites mnealtx 0 #36 September 29, 2008 QuoteQuoteQuoteWell, check out the GOP 2008 party platform, that's in writing. "We support a human life amendment to the Constitution, and we endorse legislation to make clear that the Fourteenth Amendment’s protections apply to unborn children." NO exceptions for rape and incest. *yawn* Hard to deny your own party's published platform, isn't it, even if you deny Sarah's video statement where she says the exact same thing. Do you think rapists should be allowed to select the mothers of their children, like Sarah does? Again - show me the bills with her signature - THEN I'll worry about itMike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Fast 0 #37 September 29, 2008 QuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteWell, check out the GOP 2008 party platform, that's in writing. "We support a human life amendment to the Constitution, and we endorse legislation to make clear that the Fourteenth Amendment’s protections apply to unborn children." NO exceptions for rape and incest. *yawn* Hard to deny your own party's published platform, isn't it, even if you deny Sarah's video statement where she says the exact same thing. Do you think rapists should be allowed to select the mothers of their children, like Sarah does? Again - show me the bills with her signature - THEN I'll worry about it Sounds to me like you ran out of logical arguments and are no longer able to support your position.~D Where troubles melt like lemon drops Away above the chimney tops That's where you'll find me. Swooping is taking one last poke at the bear before escaping it's cave - davelepka Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites kallend 2,147 #38 September 29, 2008 QuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteWell, check out the GOP 2008 party platform, that's in writing. "We support a human life amendment to the Constitution, and we endorse legislation to make clear that the Fourteenth Amendment’s protections apply to unborn children." NO exceptions for rape and incest. *yawn* Hard to deny your own party's published platform, isn't it, even if you deny Sarah's video statement where she says the exact same thing. Do you think rapists should be allowed to select the mothers of their children, like Sarah does? Again - show me the bills with her signature - THEN I'll worry about it it's an easy question - YOU CAN DO IT! Do you think rapists should have the right to select the (involuntary) mothers of their children? Yes or No, Mike?... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites mnealtx 0 #39 September 29, 2008 QuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteWell, check out the GOP 2008 party platform, that's in writing. "We support a human life amendment to the Constitution, and we endorse legislation to make clear that the Fourteenth Amendment’s protections apply to unborn children." NO exceptions for rape and incest. *yawn* Hard to deny your own party's published platform, isn't it, even if you deny Sarah's video statement where she says the exact same thing. Do you think rapists should be allowed to select the mothers of their children, like Sarah does? Again - show me the bills with her signature - THEN I'll worry about it Sounds to me like you ran out of logical arguments and are no longer able to support your position. Nope - it means that I'll believe it when I see the bills to make it happen. Try again.Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites mnealtx 0 #40 September 29, 2008 QuoteAgain - show me the bills with her signature - THEN I'll worry about it it's an easy question - YOU CAN DO IT! Do you think rapists should have the right to select the (involuntary) mothers of their children? Yes or No, Mike? I think rapists should be shot before they ever get their pants down. Now - if you're done with your "are you still beating your wife" questioning, let me know when a bill saying that actually hits Congress and I'll worry.Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,147 #28 September 29, 2008 QuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteA much more plausible explanation is that Wasilla police changed their policy sometime between the time Governor Knowles signed the law, and when it actually went into effect. Then provide the proof. With the small army of media whores that have descended on the town, they can't find ONE person that was charged? . Weaseling and Lame. Just having the rule on the books indicates Palin's policy. PROVE IT!!!! You stated yourself that the policy was enforced by the Wasilla police, and I've shown that the police chief was appointed under Palin. So what EXACTLY are you disputing?... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnealtx 0 #29 September 29, 2008 QuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteA much more plausible explanation is that Wasilla police changed their policy sometime between the time Governor Knowles signed the law, and when it actually went into effect. Then provide the proof. With the small army of media whores that have descended on the town, they can't find ONE person that was charged? . Weaseling and Lame. Just having the rule on the books indicates Palin's policy. PROVE IT!!!! You stated yourself that the policy was enforced by the Wasilla police, and I've shown that the police chief was appointed under Palin. So what EXACTLY are you disputing? Incorrect - reread my post. I stated that the charge would have come from the police department. As a point of fact, documents show that the reverse happened and the police department PAID. Since you keep asserting that it is Palin's policy, provide documents under her signature proving it - or admit you're wrong. (BTW, that goes for the 'bearing a rapist baby' smear, as well - provide the paper).Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,147 #30 September 29, 2008 QuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteA much more plausible explanation is that Wasilla police changed their policy sometime between the time Governor Knowles signed the law, and when it actually went into effect. Then provide the proof. With the small army of media whores that have descended on the town, they can't find ONE person that was charged? . Weaseling and Lame. Just having the rule on the books indicates Palin's policy. PROVE IT!!!! You stated yourself that the policy was enforced by the Wasilla police, and I've shown that the police chief was appointed under Palin. So what EXACTLY are you disputing? Incorrect - reread my post. I stated that the charge would have come from the police department. As a point of fact, documents show that the reverse happened and the police department PAID. Documents? One document. One time, AFTER a bill outlawing the practice was passed in the legislature. Quote Since you keep asserting that it is Palin's policy, provide documents under her signature proving it - or admit you're wrong. (BTW, that goes for the 'bearing a rapist baby' smear, as well - provide the paper). SO unless it's in writing it doesn't exist? Palin's interviews on TV don't exist for you. Well, check out the GOP 2008 party platform, that's in writing. "We support a human life amendment to the Constitution, and we endorse legislation to make clear that the Fourteenth Amendment’s protections apply to unborn children." NO exceptions for rape and incest.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jcd11235 0 #31 September 29, 2008 QuoteThen provide the proof. If you don't understand the math well enough, that's your own problem. QuoteQuoteNot at all. Why would Wasilla be mentioned specifically in the minutes? It was statewide legislature that was being discussed, not anything that singled Wasilla out. That Croft was motivated, in part, by Wasilla's policy wouldn't have changed that any. Ah, I see - so Wasilia's policy was SO important that Croft had to submit the bill to the legislature, but NOT so important as to be mentioned in the minutes of the discussion. Yes, but since Wasilla was not the only municipality with such a policy, it would be even less likely the name would come up in the minutes. The bill's sponsor even said what motivated him to propose the bill.Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnealtx 0 #32 September 29, 2008 QuoteQuoteThen provide the proof. If you don't understand the math well enough, that's your own problem. Your ad hominem attack neither impresses me nor improves your argument. Provide the proof. QuoteQuoteAh, I see - so Wasilia's policy was SO important that Croft had to submit the bill to the legislature, but NOT so important as to be mentioned in the minutes of the discussion. Yes, but since Wasilla was not the only municipality with such a policy, it would be even less likely the name would come up in the minutes. The bill's sponsor even said what motivated him to propose the bill. So what? If Wasilia was such a problem, why didn't Croft mention it along with Anchorage in the meeting? All you have is suspicion and rumor - if you want to convince me (or anyone), show me some PROOF. A politician making a statement 8 years after the fact doesn't constitute proof - it constitutes taking a cheap shot to turf out someone from the opposing party.Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnealtx 0 #33 September 29, 2008 QuoteWell, check out the GOP 2008 party platform, that's in writing. "We support a human life amendment to the Constitution, and we endorse legislation to make clear that the Fourteenth Amendment’s protections apply to unborn children." NO exceptions for rape and incest. *yawn* Let me know when the modification to the amendment goes to the voters and I'll worry about it. Until then, why don't you ask the good Senator why his committee killed a bill to provide care to babies that survive an abortion attempt?Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 3,112 #34 September 29, 2008 >A politician making a statement 8 years after the fact doesn't constitute proof - >it constitutes taking a cheap shot to turf out someone from the opposing party. Oh, admit it, Mike. If this were about Obama you'd be hyperventilating over the "biased liberal media's refusal to investigate these crimes against women by Obama." The whole thing is a non-issue. The right wing's ever more shrill and panicked denials that she had NO connection - NONE WHATSOEVER - with the issue is just keeping it in the spotlight. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,147 #35 September 29, 2008 QuoteQuoteWell, check out the GOP 2008 party platform, that's in writing. "We support a human life amendment to the Constitution, and we endorse legislation to make clear that the Fourteenth Amendment’s protections apply to unborn children." NO exceptions for rape and incest. *yawn* Hard to deny your own party's published platform, isn't it, even if you deny Sarah's video statement where she says the exact same thing. Do you agree with Sarah Palin that rapists should be allowed to select the mothers of their children?... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnealtx 0 #36 September 29, 2008 QuoteQuoteQuoteWell, check out the GOP 2008 party platform, that's in writing. "We support a human life amendment to the Constitution, and we endorse legislation to make clear that the Fourteenth Amendment’s protections apply to unborn children." NO exceptions for rape and incest. *yawn* Hard to deny your own party's published platform, isn't it, even if you deny Sarah's video statement where she says the exact same thing. Do you think rapists should be allowed to select the mothers of their children, like Sarah does? Again - show me the bills with her signature - THEN I'll worry about itMike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Fast 0 #37 September 29, 2008 QuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteWell, check out the GOP 2008 party platform, that's in writing. "We support a human life amendment to the Constitution, and we endorse legislation to make clear that the Fourteenth Amendment’s protections apply to unborn children." NO exceptions for rape and incest. *yawn* Hard to deny your own party's published platform, isn't it, even if you deny Sarah's video statement where she says the exact same thing. Do you think rapists should be allowed to select the mothers of their children, like Sarah does? Again - show me the bills with her signature - THEN I'll worry about it Sounds to me like you ran out of logical arguments and are no longer able to support your position.~D Where troubles melt like lemon drops Away above the chimney tops That's where you'll find me. Swooping is taking one last poke at the bear before escaping it's cave - davelepka Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,147 #38 September 29, 2008 QuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteWell, check out the GOP 2008 party platform, that's in writing. "We support a human life amendment to the Constitution, and we endorse legislation to make clear that the Fourteenth Amendment’s protections apply to unborn children." NO exceptions for rape and incest. *yawn* Hard to deny your own party's published platform, isn't it, even if you deny Sarah's video statement where she says the exact same thing. Do you think rapists should be allowed to select the mothers of their children, like Sarah does? Again - show me the bills with her signature - THEN I'll worry about it it's an easy question - YOU CAN DO IT! Do you think rapists should have the right to select the (involuntary) mothers of their children? Yes or No, Mike?... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnealtx 0 #39 September 29, 2008 QuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteWell, check out the GOP 2008 party platform, that's in writing. "We support a human life amendment to the Constitution, and we endorse legislation to make clear that the Fourteenth Amendment’s protections apply to unborn children." NO exceptions for rape and incest. *yawn* Hard to deny your own party's published platform, isn't it, even if you deny Sarah's video statement where she says the exact same thing. Do you think rapists should be allowed to select the mothers of their children, like Sarah does? Again - show me the bills with her signature - THEN I'll worry about it Sounds to me like you ran out of logical arguments and are no longer able to support your position. Nope - it means that I'll believe it when I see the bills to make it happen. Try again.Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnealtx 0 #40 September 29, 2008 QuoteAgain - show me the bills with her signature - THEN I'll worry about it it's an easy question - YOU CAN DO IT! Do you think rapists should have the right to select the (involuntary) mothers of their children? Yes or No, Mike? I think rapists should be shot before they ever get their pants down. Now - if you're done with your "are you still beating your wife" questioning, let me know when a bill saying that actually hits Congress and I'll worry.Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jcd11235 0 #41 September 29, 2008 QuoteYour ad hominem attack neither impresses me nor improves your argument. Provide the proof. Compare the amount Wasilla's (then) police chief estimated the new legislation would cost with the amount in your attached document. Why don't they come close to matching? QuoteSo what? If Wasilia was such a problem, why didn't Croft mention it along with Anchorage in the meeting? All you have is suspicion and rumor - if you want to convince me (or anyone), show me some PROOF. Only suspicion and rumor? You must have missed the part in the cited article where Croft explicitly stated that Wasilla's policy was among the motivator's to propose the bill. We have zero reason to believe that Wasilla would have or should have been mentioned in the minutes, despite being a reason for the legislation. Your demand for documented proof why the city wasn't mentioned is absurd.Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,147 #42 September 29, 2008 QuoteQuoteAgain - show me the bills with her signature - THEN I'll worry about it it's an easy question - YOU CAN DO IT! Do you think rapists should have the right to select the (involuntary) mothers of their children? Yes or No, Mike? I think rapists should be shot before they ever get their pants down. Now - if you're done with your "are you still beating your wife" questioning, let me know when a bill saying that actually hits Congress and I'll worry. Dodge and weave. Can't answer the question honestly, can you? In post #42 it was all a "smear". Now, presented with proof, all you can do is evade the question.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jcd11235 0 #43 September 29, 2008 QuoteI think rapists should be shot before they ever get their pants down. So you believe that we should execute people with only suspicion that they'll commit a crime? I guess that demonstrates how little value you recognize in the Constitution.Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnealtx 0 #44 September 29, 2008 QuoteQuoteYour ad hominem attack neither impresses me nor improves your argument. Provide the proof. Compare the amount Wasilla's (then) police chief estimated the new legislation would cost with the amount in your attached document. Why don't they come close to matching? I don't know why - why don't you explain it? Maybe that is what the hospital charged the police department for the forensics. QuoteOnly suspicion and rumor? You must have missed the part in the cited article where Croft explicitly stated that Wasilla's policy was among the motivator's to propose the bill. We have zero reason to believe that Wasilla would have or should have been mentioned in the minutes, despite being a reason for the legislation. Your demand for documented proof why the city wasn't mentioned is absurd. Wasilia's policy was evidently so onerous that he can remember it 8 years after the fact, but not so onerous that it got mentioned in the meeting along with Anchorage? There's a definition for your reasoning, counselor - it's called 'willing suspension of disbelief'.Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Lindsey 0 #45 September 29, 2008 Hmm. Happens in North Carolina too where the governor's a Democrat. I don't think he's any more to blame than she is. linz-- A conservative is just a liberal who's been mugged. A liberal is just a conservative who's been to jail Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,147 #46 September 29, 2008 QuoteQuoteI think rapists should be shot before they ever get their pants down. So you believe that we should execute people with only suspicion that they'll commit a crime? I guess that demonstrates how little value you recognize in the Constitution. It's cognitive dissonance because he can't bring himself to acknowledge Palin's true positions.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnealtx 0 #47 September 29, 2008 QuoteQuoteI think rapists should be shot before they ever get their pants down. So you believe that we should execute people with only suspicion that they'll commit a crime? I guess that demonstrates how little value you recognize in the Constitution. WTF??? Since when is self-defense execution?Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnealtx 0 #48 September 29, 2008 QuoteQuoteQuoteI think rapists should be shot before they ever get their pants down. So you believe that we should execute people with only suspicion that they'll commit a crime? I guess that demonstrates how little value you recognize in the Constitution. It's cognitive dissonance because he can't bring himself to acknowledge Palin's true positions. Confusing comments with legislature again, Professor?Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,147 #49 September 29, 2008 QuoteHmm. Happens in North Carolina too where the governor's a Democrat. I don't think he's any more to blame than she is. linz Apperently NC is in violation of federal law. Nationally, victims' advocates have for years reported scattered instances of rape victims being required to pay for their forensic tests, says Ilse Knecht of the National Center for Victims of Crime in Washington. Those complaints have subsided somewhat after Congress in 2005 passed a law requiring states to provide rape exams free of charge or reimburse victims for the costs, says Knecht, whose group supported the provision. "The reason we passed the legislation was that we saw it was prevalent enough to be a pretty considerable problem," Knecht says. "There are no other victims of crime that end up being billed for evidence collection." The Senate version of the legislation that included the rape-exam provision was sponsored by Sen. Joe Biden of Delaware, the Democratic vice presidential nominee. Democratic presidential nominee Barack Obama was one of 58 co-sponsors; Republican presidential nominee John McCain was not.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,147 #50 September 29, 2008 QuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteI think rapists should be shot before they ever get their pants down. So you believe that we should execute people with only suspicion that they'll commit a crime? I guess that demonstrates how little value you recognize in the Constitution. It's cognitive dissonance because he can't bring himself to acknowledge Palin's true positions. Confusing comments with legislature again, Professor? Are you really claiming that Palin is a liar? That the GOP platform is a pack of lies?... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
