Originally Posted by SummerChild
Ok, let's do another random example. Um, just picking one out of my head, does she believe that Roe v. Wade should be overturned? She says yes, then she says that that is her *personal* opinion but never goes on to say if she has a say, *public official* opinion. So what does your personal opinion have to do with it? And why keep stressing that it's your personal opinion if you haven't bothered to put forth any other types of opinions. The takeaway is that the personal opinion is the same as the public official opinion dumb dumb. Therefore, by logical deduction, there is no need to keep stressing the word "personal." Unless of course, you just want to confuse everyone by seemingly lessening the harshness of your stance by implying that there might be another opinion out there.
Ok, another one (i've just had a cup of coffee). She is pro life, pro life, blah blah blah, no stem cell research b/c it would mean creating a life just to kill it, blah blah blah. Then 2 minutes later Charlie asks her and she proudly states that she is a life member of the NRA and believes that there should be no ban on semi-automatic weapons. The problem here is that semi-automatic weapons are not used for animals, stupid. They are used to kill *people*. Presumably the same species that you are so pro-life for. Ok, the natural logical conclusion is that your stance on semi-automatic weapons would imply that you really don't value human life that much. Yes, dumb dumb, anyone with an ounce of logic would come to that conclusion. But you are slooooooooow so you missed it and put your foot in your mouth. I only wish that Gibson would have nailed your behind to the wall on it.
I think that this conflict between being pro-life but being against a ban on semi-automatic guns is the kind of thing that many Republicans have jumped on board with not realizing how contradictory the whole thing is. This leads me to believe that there must be another basis for the pro-life stance that women, in Palin's "personal" view, shouldn't be allowed to abort even in cases of rape and incest b/c it obviously it not b/c she loves the human species so much. Perhaps she, and many other Republicans, just want to control the lives of others? The same way that they balk when told that they might not be able to have semi-automatic weapons, right? Then, it's well, the states should control it. The idiocracy of that stance is that, isn't the state the *government* too? So wouldn't it still be the government controlling abortion? What does it matter if it's the federal government or the state government? The leave it to the states thing that Palin is touting just doesn't make sense, unless of course, you are the governor of a state and can use your influence to prevent legal abortions in your state. I haven't thought this out. Maybe one of my fellow legal eagles can help me here. If state A allows abortions but state B doesn't does state A have to allow everyone that comes into their state from next door to have the same "rights and privileges" as their state? Does a privileges and immunities issue arise?
SC
|