At this point, McCain is just throwing out applause lines that Rick Davis feeds him. He doesn't care if he's inconsistent...Davis will take care of that by distracting everyone with attacks on Barack Obama. The Republican campaign machine is off and ruuning...and the truth be damned.

At this point, McCain is just throwing out applause lines that Rick Davis feeds him.

And all this time i though it was a sign of Alzheimer's.......

Yeah haha he's old haha he must have alzheimers and stuff. McCain ain't jiive turkey like Obama.

Yeah. McCain is 1987's Thanksgiving turkey. Dessicated and unpalatable.

Chopped, pressed and formed with a high volume of preservatives and gelatin. Seriously, Mc"C" has this aire of contempt about him. It's like: "I shouldn't have to explain myself after all, This Obama guys is a kid and he never could even imagine what I have to go thru  being a "WAR HERO". This thing should be over so I can set up shop in the OVAL office after fumigating" He seems angry. I think he is way over his head as was bush. I believe Mc"C" could even be a worse president than bush and therefore, he must be stopped by the VOTERS before he is stopped by dementia or rigor mortis which ever comes first.

I think its gonna be denentia as I just heard Mc"C" say on ABC News, he questions Obamas judgement. I think it was Obama that did not see a need to invade Iraq. Where was Mc"C" on this subject? and as A. Colmes pointed out he is also guilty of the same thing John Edwards just got Called on. Hey Mc"C", go into detail about these judgements on your part.

It's sad that you so freely throw around idiotic racial stereotypes. 

It's also sad that your entire knowledge of Black culture comes from reruns of Good Times.  

Nice post, Jawill.in fact  DY-NO-MITE !!!

That might explain why McCain is taking a hands off approach to developing the GOP platform this year. He's just gonna let the GOP tell him what he's supposed to believe in.

I thought I'd toss this in for fun:

When asked about the RNC lineup, McCain's campaign manager Rick Davis said:

'the senator wanted the list of speakers to showcase the "diversity" of the Republican Party.

"I think one of the things that is important, especially for John McCain, as unique a politician as he is, is to demonstrate the diversity and differences of ideology I would say of our party," Davis said. "I think one of the things that people forget about is we are not a very monolithic as a party. We really want to show some of that."'

Yup, real diverse crowd of white men he's got lined up.

Rick Davis is running the show now. Rick Davis is a Karl Rove acolyte. And truth is the first casualty in a Republican campaign.

And truth is the first casualty in a Republican campaign.

Truth can't survive anywhere NEAR a Republican campaign....

In my humble opinion......

Life begins when a fetus can survive, with zero help from medicine or medical procedures to keep its potential for life posible... with only the natural order of human life cycles doing their thing.

A single cell at the moment of conception... IS NOT LIFE!!

If we allow this to be, then rest assured women will lose their rights to control their body at all...... and then what about men like me who have had the big V word done? I've had my kids, I'm done!  But the way the religious seem to think it... my wife should be continously pregnant by me all the time and she had little say in the matter....

When will the idiocy stop?

So you disagree with further penalty on an offender that kills a pregnant mother beyond whatever penalty comes down for just her murder, right?

What are you going to do, lethally inject him with twice the amount in the syrings?

That should be "syringe," of course.

I probably disagree with you on every point but it doesn't really help to be a jerk about typos; I knew what you meant.

Aw come on the death penalty isn't even legal in some states. But you're right, it's a little weird when they sentence murderers to 8 consecutive "life" sentences.

Capt, babies brought to full term and then born cannot survive on their own. Premies definitely cannot. Are they not alive? According to your definition we're not really humans until we're about, say 5 or 6?

Dex,

I find it funny that you would think that since I said "with only the natural order of human life cycles doing their thing." Meaning with the help of mom and dad once born (which would be part of the natural cycle of life)..... I guess I could have written more clearly, but since I suspected that everyone in here would have figured that out, I guess was wrong.

I also was clear about the need of the fetus needing medical help that would be beyond the technology we have today as well.  A fetus that is less than four months in the womb has a zero percent chance of survival outside of it..... all the medical help in the world would do no good.

    How about the one that's 24 weeks? It may still need some help at the beginning. Would you please allow a little help to some babies that need it? Pretty please! But, that blind baby, she won't be able to fend for herself, so we'll just kill her soon after birth. Noboby loves a blind baby, let's get rid of it.

Capt, babies brought to full term and then born cannot survive on their own. Premies definitely cannot. Are they not alive? According to your definition we're not really humans until we're about, say 5 or 6?

UK posted this the other day and it is the best response to the "life begins" drama that some conservatives engage in. 

You DON'T have a CONCEPTION DAY!, you have a BIRTHDAY!

 

Pearlene, I saw that post by UK too, pretty to-the-point. It reminded me of a Bible-thumping co-worker who was arguing with the little league about the age cut-off  for his kid. His birthday was on the wrong side of the date, so he was being put into the higher league, Dad was trying to get the date "adjusted" by a week or so, so his boy would be the right age to play in the younger league.

I reminded him to add about 9 months to the kids age if he was going to be honest and consistent.

I think it would morph into community "save that sperm" and "Save that egg" campaigns with giant centralized warehouses hundreds of stories high and miles long. Visitation rights will be a logistical nightmare with parking lots as emense as individual states. Maybe that was the real reason we went into Iraq. Storage.

I won't go that far, but life clearly CANNOT begin at concepcion, as the POTENTIAL FOR LIFE does not even begin there.  Until implantation in the uterine wall, the chance of that small cluster of undifferentiated cells ever becoming anything other than a small cluster of undifferentiated cells is ZERO.  W/O implantation it CAN'T BECOME A HUMAN.  PERIOD. 

So there's no ethical dilema AT ALL with stem cell reserach.  (There's no requirement now that spare fetuses are kept forever anyway!  Why do you con's prefer that we just throw them away?!  It's utterly sensless!)

 But AFTER implantation... from that point on the gray area starts.  So ABORTION is an entirely different issue.  (Contaception however is not, and to oppose that is also utterly senseless.)  Personally I think the only reason that 90% of pro choicers won't support laws against 3rd trimester abortions and dilation-and-extraction (partial-birth) is that they know the pro-lifers won't stop there.  IOW the irrationality on the left is a direct result of the irrationality on the right.  If we could agree that core abortion rights are sacrosant, we could do a better job eliminating the basically obvious things that we'd pretty much all agree on.  (I'm sorry, partial brith aboprtion is infanticide there's no two ways to look at it!)

And while I'm not a doctor, I can't imagine ANY medical scenario where waiting until LATERin a pregnancy and delivering VAGINALLY would HELP things.  Every complication I've ever read about or heard of suggests that (1) the longer the pregnancy goes the chance of complications INCREASES and (2) that most complications would PROHIBIT, rather than REQUIRE a vaginal birth.  So if you've gone that far and can deliver vaginally, at that point there is no medical reason not to deliver.  IF I'M WRONG, PLEASE LET ME KNOW WHY THIS WOULD BE MEDICALLY NECESSARY, BUT PLEASE ONLY DO SO IF YOU'RE A DOCTOR OR KNOW WHAT THE H#LL YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT.

 That being said I do support legalized abortions, but only in the first trimester, and the earlier the better.  I know it's a tough decision, but it's just not one we can let you take your time on.  Life DOES begin at some point, and it's a LOT sooner than pro-choicer's realize (just look at an unltr-sound!) but it's definitely NOT at concep. like the pro-lifers instist.  That's just silly.  But the clock IS ticking! 

We need to find common ground, do what we can all agree on (with regards to the law), and then STOP.

I think that as soon as a sperm hits an egg, it's a human being.

(pssst.... sane people.. just play along or this troll bait topic will explode into another hyperemotional mess of religious wackos and their incoherent posts)

Even the ones that bounce off?

After years of passionate debate with both side presenting valid and reasoned arguments, it was determined a "hit and miss" does indeed count. It was determined in the 70's that deodorant does not count on the "hit and miss" senario. I saw it on TV years ago so I know for sure.

  Yes! Even the ones that bounce off. But, if you're a real man, none will bounce off.

They're talking about eggs, Philib, not your chin.

   Awww, harl. Are you still mad at me for cleaning your clock on the 'live born' discussion?

Hallelujah Colonel!! And God bless.

Sorry, Colonel...no sex education on this forum. There might be Republicans present who will take offense. ;>)

No sense bringing up any uncomfortable stuff like this for Grampah...

He's with the Pope.  He's on the side of God.  Tough questions are only allowed for Democrats.

Just let him keep running his filthy, lyin', smearin' campaign.  The American people will once again probably be too stupid to see through it.

Don't worry ... McCain's base won't notice the obvious contradiction here.

Well heck, they looked right past his multiple instances of infidelity and sure don't mind him making stuff up about his service, why would this bother them?

Perhaps if Grampy McSame gets a BJ from an intern...... maybe that will wake up his followers?

Are you kidding? Them hipocrites would be saying "McCain, as a former POW, is just acting like all men do".

But I'll bet Rush Limbaugh wouldn't say it was because Cindy McCain disdained oral sex.

Nah, he'd blame the two sisters she denies relation to.

They should hang out with Obama's FULL brother who's currently living in a stone hut.

 Obama's FULL brother

???????????????????????????

I bet Cindy found out it years ago that his arm is not the only thing that wont go up. I thought republicans thought oral sex was just talking about it.

I bet bill agrees!

Filed In:

1. Political Humor

 

It's so obvious that McCain doesn't believe a word of these paleolithic religious talking points he is spouting. Don't the fundies see that they are being used AGAIN by the RNC power brokers?

That's exactly how I see it, too. Makes we want to barf every time I hear McCain now...

Hell, look .... Neither Reagan nor Bush-43 were actually president.  And, when Bush-41 tried to be president, the right wing power brokers cooked up Ross Perot to get rid of him.  Then they destroyed Clinton (not that he helped himself).

No RTW, they don't see it,

The bulk of American people are a disaffected, distracted band of halfwits, who take growing pride in their ignorance and stupidity.

One of the great victories of conservatism has been to dumb down the people and harness the dumb-asses via media consolidation.  This is a critical part of their holding on to power.

 

Exactly... And not for one second do I think that that John McCain believes any of the horseshet he's slinging around. If you could get him alone privately and he leveled with you he'd probabaly say "Its' just politics."

He may say that, but I call it like I see it. He'll say anything to get elected.

Got that right. And here's the quote that proves it.

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2008/8/19/235922/632/746/570818

I LOVE IT!!!

If you haven't  checked out this link, do so and, pass it on!

"It's just politics, MY FRIEND."

sounds like you are describing rap "music". When Jay Leno went on the streets and asked everyday people simple questions, I initially thought it was a comedy routine until I figured out it was for real. I still believe he only targeted Government employees or evangelicals

 

ummm, I don't know if the other posters have pointed this out yet, but McCaine stated that he believes life begins at "conception."  He did not stated that he believed life starts at "fertilization." I don't think this linguistic nuance is meaningless: fertilization refers to the union of the sperm and ova, whereas conception refer to a number of points in the reproductive process--but most commonly refers to implantation of the blastocyst (i.e., the cluster of cells after multiple divisions of the fertilized cell) in the womb, rather than fertlization.

 Now, why does this matter? Well, Media Matters, you listed four medical methods or treatments: in vitro fertilization; intrauterine devices, emergency contraception, or the birth control pill.  All four of these methods operate on the fertilized cell prior to implantation; none of them affect a zygote that has reached the commonly understood phase of conception. Thus, I think it's a bit disingenuous to take McCaine's statement that he believes, morally, that life begins at "conception," extrapolate that he actually means fertilization (the non-standard definition for conception), insinuate that he must, or very likely, belives that in vitro fertilization; intrauterine devices, emergency contraception, and the birth control pill should be made illegal, and then ask, innocently, why the press did not pose these questions?

Well, I think that it's because the logic is a bit faulty (one plus one does not equal four; you need two more to get there).  By posting this on your website as a "correction" of the conservative media, you are engaging in the tactics your foundation was established to address. Shame on you.  

You have a point, but frankly, I don't believe that McCain has even thought this out as you have. The man impresses me as a rather lazy thinker who has a gift for schmoozing like Bush does. and now we know that he'll change his positions frequently to get elected. Yes, he earlier stated that Roe v Wade should NOT be overturned.

That's an interesting point, but I'm not sure if it applies to McCain's views or not.  This is a scientific distinction that most laymen probably don't consider.  Have you ever heard someone ask if you believed that life began at fertilization, at conception, or at birth?   Probably not.  In layman's terms, the first two are the same, because the thrust of the question is whether you believe potential life is the same as actual life, and the distinction doesn't have a hell of a lot of relevance there.

If McCain wants to say that a fertilized egg isn't human but a blastocyst is, or that the former doesn't have a soul but the latter does, then he can do that.  I'd still have to wonder exactly how he came to that conclusion, and I think it would come off as disingenuous. 

Conception: fertilzation of the oocyte (ovum) by a spermatazoon.

Stedman's Medical Dictionary 1990 ed.

In the anti-abortion community, the four methods of contraception you list are viewed as murder. I think one can assume McCain was supporting this viewpoint  (or intentionally giving the impression that he supports it) unless he specifically states otherwise.

Trying to break through some of the nonesense of these posts ... Media Matters did a GREAT JOB putting together this argument. I am very much hoping for the MSM to comment on this. Of course, they will either ignore it or say that McCain is just sharpening his message!

Thank you Media Matters for bringing sense and journalism back to the free world!!

What about all the helpless tumors that just get cut out and thrown in the garbage. Tumors are alive and need to be protected! Give me a break.

Evangelicals and other cultic loonies are all quantity and no quality.

Until the baby can survive on its own, then it is a part of its mother. There are many reasons why the mother might decide to abort a baby including her own survival. But, ITS NONE OF OUR BUSINESS.

The reasonable restraints are in place and since no one actually WANTS more abortions, everyone should shut up about it.

I don't think the point is without merit.  Reproduction is a very complicated process--just because you've got the potential to create life does not mean that, left alone, nature will take its course and create a baby.  For example, spontaneous miscarriages are rather common in the early phases of pregnancy.  It's hard to say when life begins: is it when a child is born? the first trimester? when the nervous system develops? when it is implanted in the uterus? when the egg is fertilized? is sperm a child? (I do not throw sperm in to be provocative; that is the position of the Catholic church)  I don't think science can give us the answer because reproduction exists on a continuum, and thus our personal defintions of when life begins are informed by our spiritual, religious, ethical or moral beliefs:

"At the heart of liberty is the right to define one's own concept of existence, of meaning, of the universe, and of the mystery of human life. Beliefs about these matters could not define the attributes of personhood were they formed under compulsion of the State. These considerations begin our analysis of the woman's interest in terminating her pregnancy, but cannot end it, for this reason: though the abortion decision may originate within the zone of conscience and belief, it is more than a philosophic exercise." Planned Parenthood v. Casey.

I think that peoples' beliefs about what reproductive medical methods are appropriate may exist on a continuum, based in part on a personal definition of when life begins, or, alternatively, how one balances the competing concerns of a woman's right to choose. Assuming, for a moment, that McCaine is not a complete pandering hack, but has instead based his policies (and voting history), on what he believes to be ethically correct--then, do we require that he take every belief he holds to its logical conclusion? Not everyone is an extremist. Most people prefer the grey.

Perhaps McCaine has decided that abortion is wrong because he thinks that life begins at conception, but has concluded that, in the balance, the psychological harm of requiring a woman whose pregnancy was the product of rape or incest to carry her pregnancy to term outweighs the value of the life growing inside her? Maybe he's just using the "life begins at conception" as a buzz-phrase to tell evangalicals, "don't worry, i'm one of you." I have no idea.

This is what I do know, however.  Media Matter's piece was not concerned with correcting an error in the news.  It was concerned that the piece it wanted to write, critizing McCaine on policy grounds, was not written by the various outlets it cites. That's not monitoring the news; it's dictating the angle and content of the news coverage for this event. I think that's an improper position, given the stated purpose of this organization. It's a fine piece for a journalist to write, but hypocritical when produced by an organization to "monitor" the news and "correct" conservative inaccuracies.

A last point I forgot to make: I think that the journalists who wrote contrasting the candidates approaches to the question was perfectly appropriate reporting.  The angle of the story was clearly to contrast how each candidate responded to the loaded question on a controversial issue, presented before a religious audience.  It addresses how the candidates' positions played a key demographic, points out that McCaine chose to emphasize his pro-life policy, and that he invoked clearly pro-life terminology. Both pieces are concerned with image--the p.r. aspects of politics--rather than tackling the nuances of the candidates' policies. That is not an improper piece of journalism; it's the "news" of the election period.  The journalists chose certain events to highlight and selected an angle for the story.  That's not improper journalism, either.  Every news piece has an angle--that's how a news story is focused from a mess of facts to a coherent whole.  Otherwise, journalists would just be stenographers.  But angle is not the same thing as bias. Or inaccuracy.