Town Square

Post a New Topic

New York Times: Palin assails critics and electrifies party

Original post made by Yeah, i can believe it, Stanford, on Sep 3, 2008

Web Link

There is something special happening. This is the first time I've seen accurate reporting on Palin in the Times. they must smell the fact that they are going to sell a lot of ad space, because NOW they know this is a horse race!!!

Comments (26)

 +   Like this comment
Posted by Sharon
a resident of Midtown
on Sep 4, 2008 at 1:32 am


It is a done deal if we keep our cool, it is the culture of life against the culture of death.
We have no reason to reply to the the loosing side,do not reply to the culture of death posts.

Ignore them and they will fade away.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Elect McCain????
a resident of another community
on Sep 4, 2008 at 7:20 am

Sharon/Pam/Meg/Jane/and on and on and on---what is a done deal is that Palin delivered a carefully written speech, written by others i might add, to a completely partisan audience. Quite the porduction number I must say. Totally expected.
I also enjoyed seeing another republican , family values face talking at the convention--Rudy Guiliani. Estranged from his children, divorced twice, having an adulterous affair with hi snow third wife while still married to his second and announcing that he is getting a divorce during a press conference. Real class. not to mention his shameless exploitation of 9/11 for personal profit. Hey, rudy. why were the police and firefighters on different radio frequencies that day????
Culture of death???? Is that really the best you can do. Either the democrats are unpatriotic or part of the "culture of death". too bad the republicans are unwilling to discuss the real issues and face the facts about the messthey have made in this country over th elast five years


 +   Like this comment
Posted by annoyed
a resident of another community
on Sep 4, 2008 at 7:26 am

"Hey, rudy. why were the police and firefighters on different radio frequencies that day????"

Since when do police and fire share frequencies? Did your crystal ball tell you that they should be on the same frequency that day?


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Elect McCain????
a resident of another community
on Sep 4, 2008 at 7:39 am

Annoyed--Read this article:

Web Link


For years prior to 9/11 attempts had been made in NYC to get police and fire to have a shared radio frequency for reasons that were made obvious on 9/11, when Rudy and his NYPD were running away from the WTC area (where BTW Rudy had built his emergency headquarters) leaving the firefighters to their fate.

The police had for years, prior to 9/11, resisted having a shared frequency and Rudy was not about to do anything to upset his shock troops.

If it is not clear to you why a shared radio frequency is needed, than I have nothing else to say to you


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Anonymous
a resident of Another Palo Alto neighborhood
on Sep 4, 2008 at 7:40 am

Annoyed,

Do you remember the earlier bombing in the parking garage of the World Trade Center? As part of the review, the police and fire radios were supposed to interoperate. Rudy gave a no-bid contract for new radios for firefighters but those units didn't work in high rise building, like those in NYC.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Tim
a resident of Crescent Park
on Sep 4, 2008 at 8:00 am

Great speech!! Can't wait for the debates!


 +   Like this comment
Posted by annoyed
a resident of another community
on Sep 4, 2008 at 8:24 am

I stand corrected....thank you.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Danny
a resident of Crescent Park
on Sep 4, 2008 at 9:56 am

Would the "culture of death" be the same as sending thousands of brave American soldiers out to the desert to die? Maybe it's Sarah Palin's support of the aerial slaughter of wolves and bears in Alaska? Or is it allowing thousands of Americans to drown after Katrina? Oh, wait, maybe it's not protecting us from the worst terrorist attack in U.S. history...?

I can't tell which "culture of death"you're referring to, but you won't have to worry about it once Barack is elected President. You MAY have to deal with hope, inspiration, intelligence, diplomacy and equality though.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Save America
a resident of Old Palo Alto
on Sep 4, 2008 at 10:12 am

Read this now and understand later.

Obama will NOT be the President of the United States of America.

The fix is in and you got it here first.

The New York Times is snapping into line but you will see in time even the LA Times will endorse McCain-Palin.

God Bless America


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Got to get me some enlightenment
a resident of Adobe-Meadows
on Sep 4, 2008 at 10:31 am

"Would the "culture of death" be the same as sending thousands of brave American soldiers out to the desert to die? "

Yes, it would.

Same crazy culture that produces so many abortions. The U.S. (thanks to the pro-abstinence/anti-contraceptive/fundamentalist crowd) tends to have a much higher abortion rate than, for instance, enlightened--I mean godless France.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Perspective
a resident of Midtown
on Sep 4, 2008 at 11:02 am

Dear Enlightened..you are hilarious...you know nothing about abortion laws in France, nothing at all. Try looking them up.

And, I must say this everytime a fool tries to blame pro-abstinence people for higher abortion rates...compare abortion rates AND out of wedlock rates from BEFORE abortion on demand to AFTER abortion on demand...

Before abortion on demand: few contraceptives, abstinence education...
AFTER abortion on demand: limitless contraceptives anywhere, sex anytime, anywhere with anyone..

hmmmmmm
okay, now why are there so many abortions?


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Perspective
a resident of Midtown
on Sep 4, 2008 at 11:09 am

Oh, and yes, the culture of life is also the culture of liberty and the pursuit of happiness...please note which party has brought you, through an all volunteer military and relentless attacks from the far left media and leadership, 50 million more liberated men AND women across the seas, the eradication of not one, but two, murderous, torturous and oppressive regimes, and the first viable female VP in the history of the United States. ( Geraldine was the first, and it was obvious even then to my younger eyes that the ticket had no chance of a snowball in hell of succeeding).It is also the party which defends the rights of the aged, the disabled, the "unwanted", to live unimpeded by the desire of others to kill them. It is the party of freedom of speech, (none of this speech killing "fairness doctrine", or lawsuits and threats to stop TV and radio from airing opinions or movies, even idiotic ones like Farenheit whatever or AlGorisms)...

Which party do you, as an American who believes in the fundamental rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness do YOU want to a part of?


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Perspective
a resident of Midtown
on Sep 4, 2008 at 11:11 am

Oh, and the party of liberation from slavery in the 1800s, and the party that brought you Civil Rights legislation in the 60s,...and apparently now the party of CHOICE for women...the CHOICE to work full time and be a parent, regardless of gender.

OH, only Democrat women have the choice to work full time and be a mom...


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Danny
a resident of Crescent Park
on Sep 4, 2008 at 11:49 am

Perspective,

No offense, but I don't think talking to yourself can be considered dialogue. I may be wrong...


 +   Like this comment
Posted by OhlonePar
a resident of Duveneck/St. Francis
on Sep 4, 2008 at 12:03 pm

I think we have someone who's a little agitated.

Perspective,

Palin thinks it's okay for her to tell me what my medical decisions should be. She's up for judgment because she wants to be in a position of telling other women what they can and cannot do.

Sure she has the right to work, but she also has the responsiblity to take care of her kids. She's falling short--not cool for someone trying to play on the Hockey Mom thing.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by pam
a resident of Charleston Gardens
on Sep 4, 2008 at 12:23 pm

"Sure she has the right to work, but she also has the responsiblity to take care of her kids."

op supports choice for women as long as it's _her_ choice. that's what her arguments on this topic all boil down to//i personally don't agree with the pro-life movement, especially it's more radical element. nor do I agree with the more radical element of the women's movement (naral). they're both loony. this is purely about identity politics//op his challenged when confronted with difference//this makes for weak positions//palin hit it out of the park last night//lots of obamatans watched that speech, and now they are running scared


 +   Like this comment
Posted by pam
a resident of Charleston Gardens
on Sep 4, 2008 at 12:26 pm

as for medical decisions, there's no way that women in this country would ever go back to back alley abortions//the naral loons are using that fear to drive women to vote for obama//if obama cared about women he would have said something about sexist attacks on hillary and palin//he always says "don't attack the kids", while he watches his cultists attack women on principal//hypocrite


 +   Like this comment
Posted by ironic
a resident of Old Palo Alto
on Sep 4, 2008 at 12:30 pm

there's an irony to all this.... the GOP attacks citizens' private lives by dictating what women can and cannot do with their bodies, who can and cannot marry, what family values to uphold, etc... and using such "ordained authority" they attack Roe v. Wade, oppose gay-marriage, and attacked Clinton for an affair ....

yet, now, private family life issues are supposed to be off-limits because Palin isn't really the picture perfect GOP Stepford Wife/Supermom with perfect children? so does this mean the other GOP positions have changed or are they just being hypocrites? sounds like a flip-flop to me.



 +   Like this comment
Posted by mary s
a resident of Gunn High School
on Sep 4, 2008 at 12:48 pm



No one in the GOP intends to make abortion illegal.

Most do not approve of it and want to discourage it.

All believe infanticide should be illegal, which is the view of the vast majority of Americans but obama voted in favor of it.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Elect McCain????
a resident of another community
on Sep 4, 2008 at 12:57 pm

Really, Mary S, No one in the GOP intends to make abortion illegal?
So why the constant attempts to overturn Roe v Wade?
When did Obama vote in favor of infanticide (with infabticide being the practice of someone intentionally causing the death of an infant).

Here is more on the latest attempt by desperate republicans to spread lies about Obama:

Web Link


 +   Like this comment
Posted by No Compromise
a resident of Portola Valley
on Sep 4, 2008 at 1:06 pm

A sharp nail is Sarah Palin. She will hammer shut the coffin of weak and soft ideas of Chamberlain's party that has subscribed the hopes of appeasement to Obama.

The throat cutters understand appeasement as their opportunity to grow bolder and more lethal.

America will be a stronger nation because of Palin and McCain. They will not hesitate a nano second in dealing the justice necessary to convert the throat cutters to pacification.

I vote, can not wait to vote, see ya at the polls.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by mary s
a resident of Gunn High School
on Sep 4, 2008 at 1:14 pm



Abortion was legal in California before Roe vs Wade, if RvsW were overturned then each state would pass laws about it consistent with the wishes of their populations. At worst some people might have to travel a bit to get an abortion but I doubt it.

Obamas record is exstream in this matter, he supports partial birth abortion and after birth killing of the baby.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Jane
a resident of Barron Park
on Sep 4, 2008 at 1:19 pm

Obamas own words on the matter.

Web Link


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Elect McCain????
a resident of another community
on Sep 4, 2008 at 1:21 pm

Well, Mary S, seems to me that if you want Roe vs Wade overturned and then want states to decide on the abortion issue that is consistent with "wishes of the population" you will have states were abortion is illegal--sounds like more spin on your part. and if that is the case with regard to abortion, why not then allow states to decide on allowing gay marraige--why then the cry for a constitutional amendment regarding marriage--sounds like selective hypocrisy to me.

Also Mary S, please provide some facts to show that Obama supports partial birth abortion and killing babies after birth.
read the link Iposted above for some real facts on the issue, not your flawed interpretation on the issue


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Perspective
a resident of Midtown
on Sep 4, 2008 at 3:08 pm

Anyone, at all, before discussing Roe v. Wade..try reading the decision, and you will see how extremely far from it we have gone.

Specifically note that abortion was considered a private matter for the first trimester ( I still fail to see how that is "privacy" but oh well), and then it clearly stated that the STATES have a compelling interest to balance the rights of the TWO bodies...

Read it, then talk to me about "abortion rights".

It is the usual canard to scare fools..show me one Republican in office or running for office who would eradicate abortion from this country..please.

What you will find is people like me, who want it more like France's laws. First 10 weeks, almost no questions asked ( still nauseates me, this much, but I can accept it), after that, only for very specific and defensible reasons, and with the consent of multidisciplinary medical team.

This "let the baby die if he survives an abortion" horror of Obama's, along with Peter Singer of Princeton STILL holding an ethics chair for claiming that we should allow killing children up to one year old...well, this is the end of the line for that thinking.

Once we let one group of people decide who has the right to live and who has the right to die, we end up with Jews, Catholics, Disabled and Gays and anyone else who doesn't fit some idea of what is acceptable, being massacred.

Once we accept that abortion stops a human life, then we can treat abortion issues as ones of "justifiable homicide", like all other justifiable homicides, and regulate them in a more humane and consistent manner.

What kind of society is it where a person can be charged with a double homicide for killing a pregnant woman, but another person can abort the same age fetus and it is called "a right"? This shows we are schizophrenic and not at peace with our current laws.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Just wondering
a resident of Stanford
on Sep 4, 2008 at 3:14 pm

Perspective--so you disagree with Palin for example who would ban abortion even in the case of rape, with the exception of the mother's life being in danger?

what about this:

Web Link

From the above link:

Human Life Amendment to the Constitution
We must keep our pledge to the first guarantee of the Declaration of Independence. That is why we say the unborn child has a fundamental individual right to life which cannot be infringed. We support a human life amendment to the Constitution and we endorse legislation to make it clear that the 14th Amendment's protections apply to unborn children. Our purpose is to have legislative and judicial protection of that right against those who perform abortions. We oppose using public revenues for abortion and will not fund organizations which advocate it. We support the appointment of judges who respect traditional family values and the sanctity of innocent human life.

We oppose abortion, but our pro-life agenda does not include punitive action against women who have an abortion. We salute those who provide alternatives to abortion and offer adoption services, and we commend Congressional Republicans for expanding assistance to adopting families and for removing racial barriers to adoption.
Source: 2004 Republican Party Platform, p. 86 Sep 1, 2004

Ban abortion with Constitutional amendment
We say the unborn child has a fundamental right to life. We support a human life amendment to the Constitution and we endorse legislation that the 14th Amendment's protections apply to unborn children. Our purpose is to have legislative and judicial protection of that right against those who perform abortions. We oppose using public revenues for abortion and will not fund organizations which advocate it. We support the appointment of judges who respect the sanctity of innocent human life.

or what about this site:

Web Link

Seems to me they are pretty clear about abortion.
Your stance would fall far short of what the republicans want regarding abortion


Don't miss out on the discussion!
Sign up to be notified of new comments on this topic.

Email:


To post your comment, please click here to Log in

Remember me?
Forgot Password?
or register. This topic is only for those who have signed up to participate by providing their email address and establishing a screen name.

Easy Living
By Sally Torbey | 11 comments | 2,387 views

I Told My Mom She's Dying
By Chandrama Anderson | 10 comments | 2,323 views

Grab a Bowl of Heaven soon in Mountain View
By Elena Kadvany | 0 comments | 1,513 views

Quick Check List for UC Applications
By John Raftrey and Lori McCormick | 0 comments | 923 views

Campaign Endorsements: Behind the Curtain
By Douglas Moran | 3 comments | 604 views