Reply With Quote
When he asked her what she interpreted to be isn't that the same thing as asking her what it is?
Remember the Repub's are now saying it was a trick question....
Not a trick question-Charlie just didn't know what he was asking. Charlie trusted his staff to give him a good question to ask. They didn't know what the Bush Doctrine was. That's all.
When he asked her what she interpreted to be isn't that the same thing as asking her what it is?
Will one of the board conservatives be kind enough to link up a Charles Krauthammer article excoriating John McCain for having too simple an explanation of the Bush Doctrine?
Last edited by PixelPusher; 09-12-2008 at 10:44 PM.
Why? I don't care too much for him. He's too liberal for me.
I agree, McCain did not give a good answer. Like I keep saying, there is no formally defined Bush Doctrine.
Your assumption is wrong. One of the rules of logic is that any argument (valid or not) based on false assumptions can be used to prove anything is true, which you have prominently displayed above.
Correct and consistent (i.e., every time) use of condoms gives about a 3% pregnancy rate for couples using them for an entire year. A year's worth of ing between couples, not just one lay. Dumbass.
http://www.who.int/mediacentre/factsheets/fs243/en/
Good article, but it doesn't point out the frequency that these people studied were having sex. Was it daily, once a week, once a month?
I will conceed that my number are most likely in error with this data considered. However, the point remains the same. Birth control is not 100% effective. She could have had sex only once, protected at that, and unlucky enough to get pregnant from the incident.
I find the idea that someone equates pregnacy to not using protection absolutely stupid.
I find it ridiculous that because something isn't 100% effective, it's worthless, which is exactly what abstinence education tries to teach. Seriously, make an effort to be something other than the conservative equivalent to _boutons.
The lib in you is showing...
I never said they were worthless. All along, I was pointing out that becsuse she got pregnant, it does not mean she failed to use birth control. Please keep up.
I repeat myself:
Birth control is not 100% effective.
I find the idea that someone equates pregnacy to not using protection absolutely stupid.
My earlier exchange on the matter Bum:
Who said that who would know?Originally Posted by Propaganda Dan
Not much wiggle room there either...her daughter engages in unprotected pre-marital sex...
...the oldest son is an addict, and the spouse is a separatist....
Didn't they teach you in school that abstinence is the only 100% surefire way not to get pregnant?
Every other birth control has a failure rate.
Now the son... That's a new on. Haven't heard that lie yet. It's also known that the husband is not a separatist. He belonged to the group that has some members who want to succeed from the union. That's about it.
By your method of association, Obama is a terrorist!
Regarding your use of "lib " in seemingly every other post lately - do you really want to be one of those posters? You do make valid points in many of your posts (I don't agree with them, but that's just our politics) and yet, you are approaching a gtown-like tenor.
It's pretty easy to infer you are against teaching condom use if you ever believed your quote above. Otherwise, why teach kids to use something that increases their chances of unwanted pregnancies?I'll bet there are good factual statistics out there that show that unwanted pregnancies or more common with birth control than without!
It's highly likely she did not use birth control. There's an unlikely chance she could have used a condom improperly, which condom education would teach her to avoid. It's extremely unlikely the pregnancy happened though proper condom use.
I find it a bit of an upgrade from "demon-rats". There's hope for WC yet.
No. I believe the best method to teach kids is:
1) Abstinance is the only 100% effective method against unwanted pregnancies.
2) Teach the range of effectiveness of various methods because we know that most kids will have sex.
3) Stress that it is better to use two methods of birth control rather than relying on one to increase effectivenes.
I could go on, but I think you get the point.
Statistically correct. However, facts make statistics. Statistics don't make facts. Someone has to be the statistc that falls outside the standard deviation.
The assessment that she did not use birth control would be something to gamble on perhaps, but not an intellegent opinion to form as fact. In playing poker, if I have four of a kind, I will likely win the hand. However, I wouldn't bet my life on it.
I guess we shouldn't try to rush these things.
Please, she got pregnant because she and her boyfriend ed without using condoms or any birth control (which she is probably against since she's hardcore Christian). I know because I've been there before, nobody wants to put on a condom when they are in the heat of the moment.
I don't think she knows what the word "efficiency" means. It sounds like someone told her to keep referencing "inefficiency" and she didn't understand. Also, when did Medicare, Social Security, and Medicaid become government agencies? It doesn't sound like she has a ing clue as to what Gibson is talking about.
What if....she used the pill instead? And what if...she was on some sort of medication that kept the pill from working properly?
It happens. I have a friend that had the same thing happen to her. She and her husband weren't exactly looking to have kids at that point, and she wasn't aware that her meds would interfere with the pill.
I don't know the specifics of the Palin situation, but neither do any of you. I'm just throwing a hypothetical out there.
Why don't the interviewers ever ask the presidential hopefuls, "Why didn't you answer my question?" Like when Palin was asked about her foreign policy experience (of which she has NONE) she just started babbling about what America needs to do about the energy crisis. Gibson should have said, "So anyway, back to my question...."
I'm pretty sure I heard Palin use efficiency twice when she should have used inefficiency. She was just totally scripted and never answered any question directly other than she is against gun control.
I think its equally as partisan to deny she came across as someone who does not know much about the political scene today. And unless you're someone who's going to vote for McCain no matter what, that can have an impact.
I would argue that even that part was couched in generalities. The question was about a ban on semi-automatic weapons, which she didn't really address beyond the usual pla udes about being in a state with a strong hunting culture and the need for people to be able to defend themselves.
Did anyone else notice the pretty heavy-handed editing that went on in Gibson's interview of Palin? There were several questions where the tape seemed to be cut while Palin was still in mid-sentence. I know there were time constraints, it just seemed like a poor editing job and it would be interesting to see what ended up on the cutting room floor.
What exactly is Obama's foreign policy experience? Besides his Magical Mystery Media Tour he took this year, what exactly are his credentials?
Ask and ye shall receive.
It's now coming out that her interview was heavily edited to make her look as bad as possible. And you lib s wonder why so many have a problem with the media.
http://newsbusters.org/blogs/p-j-gla...alin-interview
Full transcript here.A transcript of the unedited interview of Sarah Palin by Charles Gibson clearly shows that ABC News edited out crucial portions of the interview that showed Palin as knowledgeable or presented her answers out of context. This unedited transcript of the first of the Gibson interviews with Palin is available on radio host Mark Levin's website.
http://marklevinshow.com/gibson-interview/
Gibson and ABC owes her an apology, but then again that won't happen, then they'd have to admit they are a biased bunch of liberal assholes.
Reading through the transcript, it's clear she had much better answers on some of the questions than was portrayed with all the editing.
This is bull .
I agree that ideally they wouldn't have cut any of the interview, but it looks like most of what they cut was fairly superfluous and/or peripherally related to the question, at best.
Besides, I think it cuts both ways. Some of the responses that got left out may have contributed to the impression that she knew what she was talking about, but others may have reinforced the perception that she was floundering and rambling.
If they really wanted to put her in the worst possible light, they would have cut out some of the footage of her strolling through her high school and talking about winning the state championship. That was pure fluff, but lots of viewers eat that up.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions