I believe that you (and others) are easily bothered by relatively trivial matters tangentially related to Ms. Palin based on a preference for Mr. Obama and a resultant prejudice against her. In this case, you have conflated competing policy positions into a vital moral issue, characterizing the position counter to yours as "vilely immoral." While I agree with you on the policy, I would not go so far as you on the moral judgment -- reserving that for things like the actual rape and things like murder, violence, child abandonment, etc. I do not regard your words as pretextual as your feelings may indeed be sincere but nevertheless influenced by the factors mentioned above. In your case specifically, I do not view you as a propagandist and take you at your word.

We need not debate whether it was real or not. Perception is what matters as you readily acknowledge here. The view of Mr. Obama as the candidate of snobs who look down their noses at people from small towns with guns and religion have been reinforced by the nature of some of the attacks against Ms. Palin.

Indeed. I guess that the issue will be a non-issue and hope we can quickly move onto lesser moral issues like life and death, war and peace, etc. But if someone steps out of line on the rape kit funding issue I'm glad to know that you'll be ready to raise hell!

__________________

Not everyone who believes that this is, if true, a disgusting practise supports Obama. We're not all "prejudiced" against her. I'm certainly do neither. We do, however, find it offensive that you describe a practise that denies women (who make up the vast majority of sexual assault victims) the full protection of the police that a, say, shooting victim would have, as "petty". You only try to compare it to actively murdering someone because you cannot defend it on its own terms.

I really just feel that way on the issue, which in turn triggers my feelings towards her on the issue. If the shoe was on the other foot, I'd feel likewise.

It may seem to be a 'chicken or the egg' situation, but for me the negative feelings towards her are being created by facts I learn about her, not the other way around.

When I approve or disapprove a candidate's positions, records, circumstances, etc, on any particular aspect, it's because of what I learn about them. They create the facts for which I judge them. Most of the time, it isn't something personal, just a policy wisdom or competency issue judgement I must make.

But on this particular issue, I simply find it personally objectionable in what happened on moral as well as policy grounds. I didn't create the issue. She did. I also don't find it trivial but serious, especially aggravated in revulsion given how much money she was getting from lobbyists sources. It appears just utterly callous to spend loads of earmark money on things like rinks for her town and yet charge raped women for collecting the rape evidence from them, all to save thousands on taxpayer money on that evidence, when yet she'll spend millions more on pork barrel projects and even wasteful ones, such as her prior support for the Bridge to Nowhere, etc.

As for Obama, I judge him likewise. I didn't even vote for him in the primary. Similarly, I had to judge his totality of the circumstances against HRC and I felt the totality of circumstances and factors weighed in her favour when I balanced them all out. I had no say in the GOP primary. Obama and McCain won their nominations, however, and now I must do the same between the McCain/Palin ticket and the Obama/Biden ticket. But it's the candidates who create their own facts for me to judge positively or negatively.

__________________

John McCain and his new sidekick have a record of condoning the practice of sexual assault victims having to pay for their rape exams. . .

While a victim ideally ought to have the right to opt to pay for a private exam, Palin and McCain's policies forced rape victims to be responsible for some of the costs of their own victimization, as opposed to the town/state covering it as part of law enforcement, or as opposed to making the rapist fully compensate the victim--

--a belief entirely consistent (though not equivalent) with the "good 'ol boy" attitude of a woman's rape being her own fault. Family values, McCain-Palin style!

__________________

New ad brings up 'rape kit' charge - First Read - msnbc.com

__________________
Yesterday, John McCain actually said that if he’s president he’ll take on, and I quote, 'the old boys’ network in Washington.' I’m not making this up. This is somebody been in Congress for 26 years, who put seven of the most powerful Washington lobbyists in charge of his campaign. And now he tells us that he’s the one who’s gonna take on the old boys' network,” he said. “In the McCain campaign that’s called a staff meeting!- Obama, 9/17/2008

Oh boy, President Palin is going to be a humdinger.

FD;
Yes, this is an unabashed and shamelessly partisan post, concerning the 'relatively trivial matter' of rape and intended to protect America from being saddled with a throwback.

Not because America doesn't deserve another throwback in the White House, but because America's throwbacks have a history of killing millions of people. Anybody with the lack of education suffered by this gal should be barred from any form of public office.

No, it's not. You need to re-read because you clearly did not understand the subject. Not surprising, given that you're a one-trick pony whose only aim is to stir up trouble and spread b.s. Indeed, I can fathom no other reason for your taking interest in the subject of rape or rape kits in the United States unless it involved vengeful Palestinians punishing Zionist-loving Americans through said violence in which case I"m sure you would happily dispense with "rape kits" altogether.

__________________

FD;
You sound like somebody that would dutifully bear Palin's rape-child. Maybe you'd still consider it a ' relatively trivial matter', who knows.

Let me know when President Palin visits Palestine. I can't see any other cause for you changing the topic.

You've either not re-read or are simply incapable of grasping regular English.

The entry of a one-trick pony.



You clearly care nothing about who bears the burden of evidence collection in the United States. In fact, you seem entirely unable to even grasp the subject under discussion or the meaning of my comments. Everything with you is about your hatred of America so you changed the subject yourself by entering the thread and pretending you care about (and understand) the subject under discussion.

__________________

As I said , my comments are Palin's views on pregnant rape victims belong in the brain-free skull cavity of a medieaval pope. If you want to support them, well..........

Hey, FD, nice ass pic. It is an ass, is it not ? I can't see for the dreads.

Pregnant rape victims? This ought to be good ... I don't necessarily expect you to know or understand her views, but let's hear what you think they are. Then, I'll tell you whether I support them.

__________________

FD;
I don't have to repeat her views, they're perfectly clear in the video interview I posted earlier in the thread. Maybe you forgot.

Nah, I ignored it because it has no relevance to the topic of the thread. As you phrased it in your last post, you referred to pregnant women who were raped while pregnant while I now see that you meant to refer to rape victims who subsequently became pregnant as a result of the rape. I guess that's plenty good enough reason not to discuss it. It's got no bearing on the thread topic or my previous comments, which you are unable to understand.

__________________

F.D;
Horseshit. You still need to demonstrate that you don't really believe that Palin's mediaeval outlook on rape victims is a 'relatively trivial matter'. It clearly amounts to far more than 'a relatively trivial matter' and until you do you're another Coco on a bike.

I don't need to demonstrate anything ... whatever your delusions lead you to believe.

__________________