This is an odd one, Palins 5th child is apparantly her 17 year old daughters?

[jojosmaman]

... according to some reports in the US?

here

Regardless of this woman's policies I do think that sometimes the best leaders may not make the best parents, the qualities needed for raising children and running a country are very different...

just seenthis... poor old bristol, never had a chance did she!

protecting children from online pornography

Surely if anything it si adults who need to be educated, not children who need to be protected? Or both?

Well Jesus, and there was I in my last post thinking that the Democrats would use the potential of the Republicans banning abortion as something to use against them but hell, the Republicans are actually bragging about how they plan to ban it on their campaign website...

"America's most precious asset is its children. The innocence of childhood provides hope for the future and refreshes and restores the ideals of this great country."

Where's that emoticon when you need it?

Awww sweet, and there was I cynically thinking that its most precious asset was its stockpile of 5,500 nuclear warheads. Shame on me.

I am absolutely terrified of what a McCain/Palin presidency could bring. Bans on abortion even for rape victims in many states, a crackdown on gays and unmarried couples, creationism... the whole backward, anti-women, anti-gay fundamentalist agenda.

And a ban on all stem cell research too. Just great.

I think maybe the warheads is who he means by the 'children'.....

Ah, then the second half of that sentence would make a lot more sense...

The nominated husband-to-be sounds like a sweetheart

Who cares if she wants creation taught in schools.

1. Would it be so bad to teach two different points of view? My goodness, that may make students think wouldn't it.

1. It will never happen. That is the beauty of having a separation between church and state. Religion has no place in public schools in America, and will never be welcome there.

I care if Creationism is taught in schools as fact. So should we all. It is arrant, anti-scientific nonsense and children deserve better.

But evolution is taught as fact. I have a problem with that. I'm more of an intelligent design believer because on their own, neither creationism nor evolution make much sense.

But like I said, Creationism will never be taught here, it is against the law for teachers to talk about religious beliefs in public schools, and if they did they would have to teach the ideas of Creation from different religions not just Christianity.

Does it really matter what a VP elect believes? Whatever happened to separation of church and state as guaranteed by the Constitution?

No it doesn't matter what they believe (unless you are racist and hate people of other religions)

Most people here just want to know that they believe in something.

It does matter. If the President of the most powerful country in the world believes that Earth was created in 6 days 5000 years ago and that he created fossils at the same time to test our faith, then, apart form anything else, it is very unlikely that he or she will have enlightened views on other matters. And Creationism is taught as fact in some state schools in America. It is very dangerous to say that will never happen here. The price of freedom is eternal vigilance.

And it is equally dangerous to say that believing in something is better than believing in nothing.

THis made me laugh this morning:

newsbiscuit.com/article/sarah-palin-admits-son-is-islamic-terrorist-360

Sarah Palin admits son is Islamic terrorist
The Republic Party were doing their best to put a positive spin on the latest embarrassing revelation to break from the family of the John McCain?s choice for Vice President ? that Sarah Palin?s middle son recently converted to a militant branch of Islam and has joined the shady ?Crimson Jihad? terror cell bent on destroying the ?Great Satan? the United States.

?It shows that Sarah is just an ordinary American Mom with troublesome teenagers? said one delegate at the Republican convention.

That is a bloody funny link MsD!

I was hooting about the bit about 'he's standing up for his beliefs....with guns, which is what we are all about'

Seeker, absolutely agree with your statement that, 'the price of freedom is eternal vigilance....'

However, the constitution guarantees certain rights, so what can a VP, albeit with fundamentalistic views, change? Surely teaching creationism in schools would violate separation of church and state. revising abortion laws has already been ruled in Roe v Wade.

In terms of personal beliefs, what effect will this have on the country? I don't know how any ones personal stance can affect rights enshrined in the constitution?

You don't need to revise abortion laws to make a difference. Clinics have been closed one by one by the terrorist tactics of organised right-wing groups and many states have parental notification laws. The fact that the Catholic Church is one of the largest health care providers doesn't help. Roe v Wade doesn't mean much if it's 200 miles to the nearest clinic.

Roe v Wade can be overturned by the supreme court. The current President nominates candidates for the Supreme Court (as existing Justices retire) and the latest Republican-appointed additions have been judges who would vote to overturn Roe v Wade-the religious right give a lot of money in campaign contributions to make sure their voices are heard.

The very fact that Palin was chosen as a candidate shows how keen the party was to attract the support of the right. Yes they chose a woman to capitalise on the disenchanted Hillary voters- quite ironic really as female genitalia are about the only thing Clinton and Palin seem to have in common- but they also needed to firm up the support of the Christian groups that can deliver a lot of money and votes.

What Supreme Court seats will be vacated in the not too distant future?

yes, the Supreme Court can overrule itself, but the principles of Roe v Wade are good case law, and shows that the check and balance system is alive and well (judicial v executive) It was decided in 1970 (?) and is still the case of record for abortion despite various Republican Presidents - name Republican Presidents since 1970...

How does the executive influence the judicary? Obviously by appointing supreme court judges with the same values, but my query is more of a constitutional point; despite right wing values, will this have any immediate effect? I hope not and that any fundamentalist factions are knocked down as unconstitutional.

You're right, her values won't have any immediate effect. It's more that her being chosen is a reflection of the power of the right- the party knows that a candidate who's anti abortion even in the case of incest or rape will get them a lot of support. It depresses me.
The judiciary they appoint believe in a more literal interpretation of the constitution i.e. if the founding fathers had intended to give a blanket right to privacy they would have stated that. The majority verdict in Roe v Wade relied on the justices finding that there was an implied right to privacy. It's true that there aren't going to be a lot of vacant seats though. Unfortunately one zealot with a gun could change that very quickly, and that's something the Christian right have in abundance.