Sarah Palin Speech @ 2008 Rep Convention pt 2

[matisforever]

it is like watching a train wreck. you want to look away, but can't. you know it is going to be bad, but you just can't look away. what on earth were the republican leadership thinking when they found this women?

[williambellor]

I notice that despite how much you express your hatred for her, you are unable to list anything specific about her policies that you disagree with. Make me think that you are simply intimidated by the concept of a strong woman who espouses conservative principals! It's sad really!

[matisforever]

Well Dontcha kno?!?

policies you say???

-Abortion, Choose life, even if her own daughter were raped. Only exception for abortion is if mothers life would end. what about incest?

-Rights. Ok to deny benefits to homosexual couples, No spousal benefits for same-sex couples.

"Make me think that you are simply intimidated by the concept of a strong woman who espouses conservative principals! "

Oh say it aint so williambellor!

[williambellor]

Regarding abortion: does the baby inside have any less of a right to exist just because it was the product of rape? But even I have to acknowledge that Palin's position on this issue goes a little beyond mine, but that is the beauty of the Republican party; we allow viewpoints from all across the political spectrum. Is Palin's position on abortion any less extreme than Obama's position on partial birth abortion, of his position that a baby that survives an abortion can be left to die?

[williambellor]

Regarding Homosexual Rights: The Constitution says nothing about gay marriage, so that means it is up to the states to figure out for themselves. That question has been put to a vote in 30 states and all 30 states said marriage is between one man and one woman. If we expand the definition of marriage to include homosexuals, would we not also be obligate to expand it to include polygamy, pedophilia, bestiality and necrophilia.

[matisforever]

Elastic Clause?To your last statement, this is a logical fallacy free zone. Slippery slope is a fallacy of logic. I am not talking about things that are illegal like bestiality, i am talking about a union that grants rights to two HUMAN BEINGS who want to get the same rights as another couple. It isn't a gay or not or whether it is right issue, but is really a equal rights issue. it is an extension of rights to all Americans regardless of their race, religion, or sexual orientation.

[williambellor]

When talking about the illegality of bestiality, I would assume that you would extend that definition to polygamy and pedophilia as well since they are also illegal. So if your argument is based on what is legal and what is illegal, then if we changed the law to legalize polygamy and pedophilia, they would cease to be wrong, right? Didn't sodomy used to be illegal? Isn't pedophilia legal in many parts of the world today and wasn't it more common thousands of years ago?

[williambellor]

Organizations like NAMBLA are already pushing to have the definition of marriage expanded to include man/boy love. Are we denying them the equal rights of two human beings to love each other? What about polygamists? Are we denying them the equal rights of three, four, five or more human beings to love each other?

[williambellor]

And what about the will of the people? As I mentioned above, the question has been put to a vote 30 times in 30 states and each time the people have said marriage is between one man and one woman. If equal rights are so important to the gay community, why not attempt to legalize civil unions? While American consistently reject gay marriage, poll after poll show support for civil unions. If civil unions were legalized and afforded the same rights as marriage, why do gays reject the idea?

[williambellor]

The fact is that gays have only been able to force gay marriage on states by using the courts to override the will of the people. Regardless of your position on gay marriage, that should concern you. If the courts can override the will of the people, then our votes are pointless. And don't give the "equal protection under that law" line, because the gay marriage interpretation of that law is not in the mainstream of judicial thought. If it was, the Supreme Court could answer this once & for all.

[matisforever]

But that is the idea of the courts. when something happens that is unconstitutional the court acts to strike down that law. Judicial Review? "override the will of the people" sounds like you would be arguing Brown vs. Board on the side of the Board. it is equal protection under law, there is no other way to define it. race, religion, gender, or sexual orientation ,right? "once & for all"? that scares me, then the court cant overturn itself? guess you better give up the abortion fight then.

[williambellor]

The problem with the courts is when judges step in and write law, rather than interpret the law. Tell me specifically where there is any law that discusses marriage. If not the 10th amendment says it's up to the states. Brown vs. Board was a legitimate case because the constitution does say that all men are created equal. Roe vs. Wade was a bad decision because the constitution says nothing about abortion or privacy; I challenge you to find either word int he constitution.

[matisforever]

lots of laws discuss marriage, right? don't they? i always thought there were? well guess not. If all men are created equal then if people are denied the right to wed, because of sex isn't that an equality issue, that would have to be settled by the court? wouldn't a marriage between two men be the most ultimate equality?

[matisforever]

because it is like separate but equal. it isnt quite marriage, but it is still kinda equal. and since when did the will of the people become the ultimate decider on laws and policy? yes we vote, but should we extend public opinion to all topics like Iraq War pullout and have every issue be a referendum? that part is beside the point tho.

[williambellor]

Liberals love to use the separate but equal argument because of the one time it became separate but unequal, but it applies to so many parts of life successfully that you refuses to acknowledge. But I understand your desire to use it because the prevents you from having to discuss why civil unions are not a good thing. Provided the decision of the people in not unconstitutional the right of people to make decisions for themselves began on July 4th 1776. It's called democracy, look it up!

[williambellor]

Matters of war are up to the Congress and decisions of when to end it are up to the Congress and CIC. That is in the constitution as well; you should read it sometime, it's a great read.

[matisforever]

that was a hypothetical question to show that you are overextending the will of the people ideal. it was showing that it is ridiculous to say that the will of the people should matter to everything, which it should not.

[matisforever]

it is also separate but unequal here. if its a civil union, why don't you call it marriage? i don't understand why it can be a union, but not marriage? they are the same legal thing right?

[williambellor]

Because the word "marriage" means something. If all the same rights are given to civil unions, why would gays object to that?

Based on your words, I assume you lean to the left politically and probably also have a greater than average concern for the environment. Would it bother you if Exxon changed it's name to Green Energy Systems, but continued operating the same way? My guess is, yes, because the word "green" means something and what Exxon does ain't it. It's the same with marriage.

[matisforever]

that is a non-issue, the fact is you are denying them marriage because they are gay, which is wrong.

[williambellor]

No, gays have the same exact rights as straight people when it comes to marriage; a gay person can marry anyone they want of the opposite sex, same as me.

[matisforever]

but you deny them the right to marry who they want under what pretense? the fact that they are gay, which is discriminatory. Equal Protection Under Law, or no? i guess since john doe is gay, he can't do those things like have a weeding.

[matisforever]

not what we are talking about. a digression right? we are discussing homosexual love still right?

[williambellor]

No one is attempting to outlaw homosexual behavior, their right to love each other or even their desires to formalize their relationship. The only problem is their desire to use the word marriage. Marriage has been a part of human culture for more than 5000 years and means one thing; a union between one man and one woman. The error here is that US law only recognizes one legitimate union between two people and civil unions would correct that oversight.

[matisforever]

why not marriage? because of tradition? they used to stone people lets bring that back. they had polygamy back then too, but you say thats illegal as is pedophilia. but you said that was bad. so why use the example of tradition, when it can be played both ways?

[williambellor]

Because most people accept that stoning people is barbaric. That's why that ended. Put it to a vote today and people would agree that stoning is wrong. People also agree that polygamy and pedophilia are wrong. And they also agree that a marriage is between one man and one woman.

[matisforever]

you could put a lot of stuff to a vote and realize that modern science is wrong, blacks are inferior to whites, and the civil war was the north's fault. In a group of three idiots and one genius, popular vote is going to go with the idiots. do you agree that the Voting Rights Act of 1965 was necessary to grant equal rights? when the voting rights act was past in 1965, do you think a popular vote would have gotten the same result? is the mob always right?

[williambellor]

The Declaration of Independence states that all persons are created equal and the Constitution and Bill of Rights were written to insure that those rights were protected. Based on this, any law that stated that one person was less than another person would be unconstitutional. One of the rights given to equal persons in the US is the right to vote, so the voting rights act was an affirmation of the constitution and those who opposed it were in conflict with it.

[matisforever]

just as laws denying gays the right to marry is spitting in the eye of those rights passed down from our founding fathers. thanks for affirming my point.

[matisforever]

ok, faulty argument base, but this is consensual love between two HUMAN BEINGS over the age of consent. not animal on human. or within the same family, or under the age of consent. big difference.

[williambellor]

What about polygamy, do you have to accept that to because it is consensual love between three or more HUMAN BEINGS over the age of consent? What about members of the same family over the age of consent? If we can kill an animal for food or sport, why is having sex with an animal so much of a stretch? What about dead people; if we can kill a living baby in utero because it can't call a lawyer and sue, why can't we have sex with a dead person? They can't sue either.

[matisforever]

the fact is though, i am talking about gay rights, you keep shifting the issue, why?

[williambellor]

Because if we expand the definition to include gay unions, we must also expand it to include the other items. As I said before, NAMBLA is already pushing for this. So are Polygamists! If we do change the definition if marriage to includes gays, how can we say no to NAMBLA or Polygamists?

[matisforever]

sorry again this is a logical fallacy free zone, much like the no spin zone you love. slippery slope is not allowed here. we are talking about gay rights. you keep changing the subject. logical fallacy free zone

[williambellor]

My YouTube channel, My rules!

Slippery slope arguments are critical when passing any law because if a new law creates a new precedent then one must consider the implications of that precedent. If you can make the argument that gay marriage should be allowed because it is a union between two consenting adults, how can you make the argument that polygamists should be excluded because there are three or more consenting adults?

[williambellor]

And if someone makes the argument that a precedent exists to redefine a 14 year old child as a consenting adult because a 14 year old can be tried as an adult, how can you make the argument that NAMBLA members should be excluded from the right to marry if we've already expanded the definition of marriage to include gays?

Answer those questions and stop trying to create a distraction with arguments about logical fallacies.

[matisforever]

but an argument is based on logic, if you don't use logic, then there is no argument. you have to use a good logical argument. without it we aren't doing anything. you talk about what might could possibly happen if we extend rights to gays. so we do what is safe and we discriminate against them. is that what you are saying? for the safety of 14 year old boys, gays can't have rights?

[matisforever]

Logic Trumps youtube again though. because we don't fall for logical fallacies, that is why. the debate is over rights, guaranteed to all people. and gays deserve the equal protection of law, right or wrong?

[matisforever]

There really isn't a baby its an embryo, it can't survive outside the womb, so it is an embryo. Does that make masturbation mass murder, since all of the sperm could make a living thing?

I think women shouldn't be forced to have their rapists baby. to me rape is just as bad as murder.

[williambellor]

It's true that most babies can't survive outside the womb, but six month old babies that have been born cannot survive without their mother to feed and care for them. Can we kill them to? When Scott Peterson murdered his pregnant wife, why was he charged with 2 murders & not just 1? If that is just an embryo in there, should it not be just 1 murder? If you make the argument that Lacy wanted her baby, can you give another example where ones civil rights are determine by someone elses wishes?

[williambellor]

If it's OK to murder a 7th month embryo, is it also OK to murder a baby born two month premature? Both represent a baby at the same level of development. If there is an option to deliver a baby prematurely rather than abort it, should that not be the preferred option? The truth is that everything needed to form a human being is present at the moment of conception and the only absolute transition that occurs is at the moment of conception.

[williambellor]

As for your masturbation argument, the answer is no because a sperm cell cannot form a baby on its own. Regarding you position on rape, I agree with you that rape is as bad as murder, but is it the babies fault that it was the product of a rape & does that make its life any less valuable? If Roe vs Wade were overturned, the result (despite what liberals think) would not outlaw abortion, but instead, throw the question back to the states and many of those states would make exceptions for rape.

[matisforever]

Then i guess if you stop sperm from contact with an egg, you are stopping life from existing. that seems ridiculous, because it is. can a fertilized egg life on its own? no, because it is not alive. it has the potential for life, but so does my computer. i also have the potential to fly.

[williambellor]

There's a big difference between not starting a life and ending one!

[matisforever]

I think, he shouldn't have been charged with two murders, as he only killed one person. and your first part is irrelevant. we are talking about before birth. does life begin at inception then?

[williambellor]

That's your opinion

My comments are only irrelevant to you because you can't come up with an answer to what I said.

Life begins at conception!

[matisforever]

then i guess a miscarriage is death? and also before 20 weeks the embryo can not survive outside the womb, so it isn't alive. using the characteristics of living things, an fertilized egg can not reproduce, so it is not yet a living human being.

[williambellor]

That's right a miscarriage is a death. Ask any woman who has miscarried and she will tell you the same thing! She doesn't mourn the loss of a fetus, she mourns the loss of her baby.

The20 week embryo argument is pointless because even a 1 year old child cannot survive without someone to take care of it.

Regarding the ability to reproduce; a 4 year old can't reproduce, a gay can't reproduce, a menopausal woman can't reproduce; are they not considered human?

[matisforever]

but before 20 weeks, even with a mother taking care of it, the fetus can not survive. that is what i mean by surviving outside the womb.

[williambellor]

Explain why the mother denying care for her baby 20 weeks after conception is any different than a mother that refuses to feed her baby after it is born. In both cases, the baby is totally dependent on someone else for its survival. Dead is dead, regardless of whether the baby is starved to death or fed into a Cuisinart!

[matisforever]

in science, the embryo can not survive without car at 20 months, so you know it is not alive, because at that point it can not join our world called Earth, where things are living. a 20 month old embryo can't survive for one second outside the womb a baby born regular time can. that is why it is living.

[matisforever]

part II: to be honest i don't hate her, i just think whomever decided that she was the second most qualified republican for the office of president of the United States, needs their head examined. the things she said scared me a lot. it seemed that she really didn't have a grasp on world affairs. and her mannerisms were a little less than presidential (or vice presidential).

[williambellor]

That's your opinion and your entitled to it, but I could say the same thing about Obama. At least Palin would have been second in command and not POTUS and she would have had the opportunity to gain experience in that position. Also Palin had executive experience; she had been governor of a state and had also run a business which made her infinitely more qualified that Obama. What has Obama ever run? Answer: Nothing!

[matisforever]

If Executive Experience matters so much, then McCain has none either. Obama was Senator for four years. Palin Gov. of a State the with a population of only 684,000 and the most by people to earmarks.

Running a business? i am just confused by why that is a big qualification for President. Should we go by education instead?

If she can "gain experience in that position" than by your words so to should Obama.

did you want to balance out the experience, McCain a ton vs. Palin not enough?

[williambellor]

McCain has loads of experience from his decades in the Senate. He also had leadership skills courtesy of his time in the military.

The size of Alaska is irrelevant , Palin still was the final authority in that state and had to make decision all the time. As for running a business, when you run a business, you must make decisions that affect the success of your company. As President, you must make decisions that affect the success of a country. Business experience is critical for a President.

[williambellor]

Education is also nice, but experience trumps education every time. Two applicants go for a job interview, one has a good education and the other has job experience; who do you think will get the job?

There is room to gain experience in foreign policy as the Vice President because none of the VP's decisions are final. The President, however is a different story. An inexperienced President will make disastrous decisions because they lack the experience to know any better. Palin good, Obama bad!

[matisforever]

i don't think there is room to gain experience, as you need to advice the president as the vp, how can you advice him if you have no advice to give, but in her credit she does read every newspaper, and you also can become president at any second.

[williambellor]

Minimal experiences doesn't mean she can't give advice. I have never been in politics. but my life experience gives me enough if a grip on the world to give advice to a President. It's up to the President to weight the value of the advice and decide if it's relevant. Also, if you are making the argument that a VP without experience is an undesirable thing, what about our President who is even more inexperienced?

[matisforever]

tell me, she has more foreign policy experience than barrack, just say it, please?

[williambellor]

There's more to being President (or Vice President) than foreign policy experience, there is the ability to weigh consequences and make important decisions. Besides, I trust her far more as Vice President that I trust Obama as President! There's more to foreign policy than going to schools as a child in Indonesia. There's more to foreign policy than going to foreign countries and apologizing for all the good things that America has done for the world.

[matisforever]

I didn't doubt mccain's experience in life, i just noted he also had no executive experience.

I think size of the state does count. as Alaska is much different than running say Texas or Arkansas. my dad runs a business, he is not qualified for president. if my dad ran a business, then surfed as gov. of a state for 20 mos, he is still not qualified to be vp or potus.

[williambellor]

Executive experience means that a person has leadership skills and McCain has that in spades due to his military career.

The size of a state is irrelevant. A Governor still must make countless decisions that affect the lives of the people in the state. It doesn't matter whether there are 1 million or 20 million people depending on those decisions. I don't know your dad or his situation, so I can't comment on that, but one must also have a grip on world affairs to be POTUS. Obama has neither!

[matisforever]

no grip on world affairs? give me a break. cool the ridiculousness, we both know that isn't true.

[williambellor]

Name one thing Obama did right in his recent trip to Europe. Hell, name one thing Obama has done right since took office. It's been one error after another with him and we're barely 2 months into his Presidency.

God help us!

[matisforever]

closing gitmo, that was like day one. going to europe and getting support of foreign leaders for future adventures in the world. he has also began to setup a new policy with syria and israel.

[williambellor]

Obama hasn't closed Gitmo, he simply stated his desire to do so. But he still has no idea where to put the terrorists that currently reside there.

Bush went to Europe as well to get support for Iraq and Afghanistan and was actually much more successful than Obama was. Obama accomplished nothing in his trip and I am sure he will have the same level of success that every other president has had with Israel and Syria. There is no negotiating when one side wants the other dead!

[matisforever]

that is why he didn't close it right away, he just is deciding to start following the constitution and the Geneva Convention when it comes to gitmo.

Bush was not really successful, i recall for Iraq. Iraq was not a good idea. he lied to congress to go in, but most of Europe smelled something, and smartly stayed away. if you read the New Yorker article on it, there is much negotiation and the Obama team is pushing into that direction. if you wont negotiate, what will they do for peace?