Comments on: Attention PUMAs! Attention All PUMAs!

By: Lori

Lori — Mon, 01 Sep 2008 14:18:14 +0000

Fostert – When is the last time you stepped outside for a breath of fresh air? Please, step away from your computer, go outside & take a few deep breaths and then come back.

By: fostert

fostert — Mon, 01 Sep 2008 12:59:25 +0000

"You can’t even tell me what religion she is."

She's Christian. And one of those "post-denominational" ones. The last time I met one of those, it was Randall Terry, the scariest theocrat I've ever met in any religion. He advocates killing homosexuals and the jailing non-Christians.

By: fostert

fostert — Mon, 01 Sep 2008 12:43:00 +0000

"You can’t find one single instance where she insists that anyone follow her example."

How about her support of laws banning abortion and contraception? When you pass a law about something, you are insisting that they comply with your wishes or go to jail. That's not just insistence, it's insistence backed by the force of law.

By: fostert

fostert — Mon, 01 Sep 2008 12:40:05 +0000

Oh, and right on time, Palin's daughter proves my point. Bristol, at only 17 years old, is pregnant. My family may have been a little dysfunctional, but nobody got pregnant or made anybody pregnant at that young age. It would have been a disgrace in my family. But in Palin's family, sexual irresponsibility is perfectly acceptable, apparently. I understand why you people talk so much about family values: it's because you don't have them. So instead of forcing your laws on my house, why don't you get your house in order first.

By: Jimmie

Jimmie — Mon, 01 Sep 2008 12:32:16 +0000

Theocratic? You can't even tell me what religion she is. You can't find one single instance where she insists that anyone follow her example.

Again, you're making stuff up.

By: fostert

fostert — Mon, 01 Sep 2008 12:28:24 +0000

No, Palin's positions on the issues really do scare me. She's the worst of the theocratic Republicans. I've traveled the world and seen what theocracy does to countries, and it's not pretty. My attitude is clear on this: decisions made by the government should be based on sound science, proper math, and internationally accepted accounting practices. They should not be based on the Bible. Palin and I obviously disagree on this point. Look, you would have a problem with a government based on religion if that religion were Islam. You have made that clear in the case of Iran. And, on that point, we agree. But when a government is based on Christianity, I still have a problem with it and you don't. In fact you want it, as your support for Palin shows.

By: Jimmie

Jimmie — Mon, 01 Sep 2008 12:04:58 +0000

I am now fully convinced that you are yanking my chain here and just being ridiculously contrary for the sake of contrariness.

By: fostert

fostert — Mon, 01 Sep 2008 01:33:11 +0000

"What she clearly believe is that women should have enough control of their bodies to bear a child without your condescension"

In other words: she must bear a child against her will if she doesn't want a child. That's not a choice. And Palin supports forced pregnancy when it will kill the mother. And she supports the introduction of chemicals into the biosphere that cause miscarriage, which results in more destruction of blastocysts than abortion. Ironically, the wingnuts in Colorado are trying to push legislation that would define a blastocyst as a human, and thereby open up mining companies to lawsuits from causing miscarriages by releasing heavy metals. Oops, sucks to be stupid.

If you really want to say you're pro-life, you'd stop killing it. And you'd oppose in-vitro fertilization for the six blastocysts that get destroyed for every life. One life for one is bad enough. But six for one is just plain crazy. The pro-life movement is apparently okay with it, though. But, hey, I never thought the pro-life movement actually cared about life, anyway.

I do, and I want to limit the amount of abortions rather than making it a political issue. Reducing pregnancy would go a long way. But McCain and Palin want to increase pregnancy by making sure no young girl ever gets any scientific information about reproduction. They want to rely on the good judgment of teenagers. Now I don't have any teenage children, but I was once a teenager. Let's just say my judgment was good enough for the Ivy League, but not quite up to abstinence. And I was one of the more responsive students. Good thing I used condoms. No thanks to the Christian based education I got in public school. Even the best students won't remain abstinent, but Palin believes they should forced by law into into a bad marriage and a life of raising a child they can't afford to have. And she believes that the child should have have a bad education because its parents can't afford private school.

Look, I've been to India and seen the results of what conservatism has on society. The rich are fabulously rich. And the poor just wish they had something to eat. And the society is completely dysfunctional because the poor are too hungry to think, and the rich don't think at all anymore (except for a small minority in Bangalore). Any concept of economic progress is quickly overrun by their insistence on uncontrollable procreation. Conservatives love this kind of thing: No contraception, No infrastructure development, and No eduction. Keep the populace starving and pregnant is the way. This is the society that Bush wants, it is the society that McCain wants; and if Palin had a brain, it's what she'd want too. But I've been to India, and believe me, you don't want it. But conservatives will certainly vote for it because being a king in a third world country is still better than working.