Rumors and Truth
Um, so what. She has kids who are being kids. Kids do the damnedest things. They drink, experiment with drugs, have sex, and generally test the waters of life.
I don't see why this is newsworthy, or why it will impact the vice presidency if McCain is elected. Oh, other then I can definitely relate to this ladies family life a little bit.
This all reminds me of an old quote attributed to Samuel Clemens. "If you don't read the newspapers you are uninformed, if you do read the newspapers you are misinformed."
Not much I hate in this life, I sometimes hate the media.
I think it rebuts perfectly that nasty rumor that Palin hid her daughter's pregnancy and used it as her own. I find spreading false rumors for political gain repugnant and telling the truth refreshing. Obviously Mrs Palin felt the same way or she would not have made this announcement.
McCain is trying to sell her to conservatives as an effective traditional mother and politician who is able to balance family and career. While parents may not be responsible for the actions of adult children, they are held responsible for their underage children.
McCain's camp says that he knew about all of this and chose her anyway. Personally, I think that's bullshit.
While it's refreshing to see a Republican sex scandal that does not directly involve the candidate, it's still trouble.
BTW, determining the age of a fetus is not an exact science, so the "she couldn't be pregnant then because she's pregnant now" argument may not fly.
I'm not sure if even liberals would be able to ignore something like this.
I agree its trouble but it does not speak of Palin herself as the one committing the subterfuge.
Some may find pregnancy at this age morally repugnant, but the age of consent in Alaska is 16. This is the age at which an individual may consent to have sex with someone over 18, legally. I am not sure underage would apply to her daughter if you are going by the legal definition for that state. The minimum age to marry in Alaska is 18. People under the age of 18 can marry with the consent of both parents.
Some may find pregnancy at this age morally repugnant, but the age of consent in Alaska is 16. This is the age at which an individual may consent to have sex with someone over 18, legally. I am not sure underage would apply to her daughter if you are going by the legal definition for that state. The minimum age to marry in Alaska is 18. People under the age of 18 can marry with the consent of both parents.
Again, one of the reasons for her selection was her appeal to social conservatives, with the implication that she could be a mother of 4 underage children (1 with special needs) and manage the number two job in the US. This incident does not support that. Will her husband be Mr. Mom while she is VP or will she require a nanny? Who will care for her baby when she travels overseas, especially to countries to which embassy personnel are discouraged from bringing dependents.
Most liberals and real libertarians won't care, figuring that anyone has the right to mess up their own family, but social conservatives will have a mental image of the baby crying for his mother while she boards Air Force Two. The fact that she already has a family crisis while simply a state governor is not going to reassure anyone.
From
here
The Alaska age of consent laws are unique. The age of consent in Alaska is 16. This is the age at which an individual may consent to have sex with someone over 18, legally, in Alaska. It applies both to heterosexual and homosexual acts
In Alaska, as in many other states, the laws on statutory rape depend, in part, on the age difference between the two partners. The law recognizes statutory rape only in cases involving an age difference of more than 3 years. A 20 year old man who has sex with a 15 year old girl, in Alaska, is guilty of statutory rape. A 17 year old male who has consensual sex with a 15 year old girl is not guilty of statutory rape, under Alaska law.
Do you think Obama's kids will be crying for their Daddy when he boards Airforce 1?
In Alaska, as in many other states, the laws on statutory rape depend, in part, on the age difference between the two partners. The law recognizes statutory rape only in cases involving an age difference of more than 3 years. A 20 year old man who has sex with a 15 year old girl, in Alaska, is guilty of statutory rape. A 17 year old male who has consensual sex with a 15 year old girl is not guilty of statutory rape, under Alaska law.
Moot point, the girl is 17 and could have been 16 at the time of the event depending on her exact BD which would have been the legal age of consent. Statutory rape does not apply.
Most liberals and real libertarians won't care, figuring that anyone has the right to mess up their own family, but social conservatives will have a mental image of the baby crying for his mother while she boards Air Force Two. The fact that she already has a family crisis while simply a state governor is not going to reassure anyone.
How many of your good friends are social conservatives, Rich? I posit that you have no idea what one would think.
She would be considered underage, if she needs the consent of her parents to get married.
I wonder if Palin secretly wishes now that she had taught her daughter to use birth control...since the abstinence teachings obviously didn't work.
She would be considered underage, if she needs the consent of her parents to get married.
I wonder if Palin secretly wishes now that she had taught her daughter to use birth control...since the abstinence teachings obviously didn't work.
That is not how the law reads BC. There are two different laws and they do not necessarily work well together. ;)
I wonder if Palin secretly wishes now that she had taught her daughter to use birth control...since the abstinence teachings obviously didn't work.
If a liberal has a daughter who accidentally gets pregnant while using birth control, do they secretly wish they had taught the kid abstinence, since the birth control thing obviously didn't work?
Most people genuinely believe what they believe, across the board, and it's foolishly partisan to assume they don't.
The minimum age to marry in Alaska is 18. People under the age of 18 can marry with the consent of both parents.
So this isn't what the law is in Alaska?
I guess it depends what you mean by underage, underage to have sex and get pregnant? Nope! Underage to get married ? ... yep!
If a liberal has a daughter who accidentally gets pregnant while using birth control, do they secretly wish they had taught the kid abstinence, since the birth control thing obviously didn't work?
Most people genuinely believe what they believe, across the board, and it's foolishly partisan to assume they don't.
No, it's not foolish. The liberal VP-candidate parent might wish something like that, and a host of other things when faced with such a situation. However, as a liberal, the parent and his/her child are free to choose from a variety options to deal with the situation, without looking hypocritical.
I'm not sure if even liberals would be able to ignore something like this.
Exactly what is the scandal? Where she and most Americans come from, an abortion would be the scandal. I think liberals will be the only ones not ignoring this. From here it looks like a family addressing a problem inside the bounds of their belief system.
However, as a liberal, the parent and his/her child are free to choose from a variety options to deal with the situation, without looking hypocritical.
By "variety of options," one can really only assume that you mean abortion, since pretty much every other option is available to the non-hypocritical conservative. And again, you are assuming that the big concern would be
looking hypocritical.
Let's say someone does something horrible to your family. Do you secretly wish you could murder them, but don't only because you have publicly spoken against murder in the past--or do you
genuinely believe that murder is wrong, and the fact that you are in difficult circumstances doesn't change that?
By "variety of options," one can really only assume that you mean abortion, since pretty much every other option is available to the non-hypocritical conservative. And again, you are assuming that the big concern would be looking hypocritical.
Let's say someone does something horrible to your family. Do you secretly wish you could murder them, but don't only because you have publicly spoken against murder in the past--or do you genuinely believe that murder is wrong, and the fact that you are in difficult circumstances doesn't change that?
We're still talking about politicians, aren't we? Because looking hypocritical is a pretty big concern when running for office.
Yes, I meant abortion--and adoption, and the daughter raising her child as a single parent. I don't think adoption is available as a hypocrite-free option to the conservative politician.
I'm not sure I understand what you're trying to prove with your analogy. Are you saying that Palin is so pure in her beliefs, that she could never regret her decisions leading up to her daughter's situation? Are you equating birth control with murder?
Are you equating birth control with murder?
And there's the rub. Currently, the Feds only fund abstinence-only education instead of ABC. Whether she likes it or not, the American Academy of Pediatrics has come out against abstinence-only education, deeming it less effective and safe than including contraception.
The federal government, however, has tied conditions to it's funding contrary to the opinions of most experts due to social bias. Schools are not even given a choice.
Her personal situation only highlights the fact that she's in denial about teen sexuality. The fact that her daughter is getting married is nice, but ignores the fact that marriage due to pregnancy is not the recipe for a lasting marriage, and that girls and boys do not always have sex with individuals that they would choose as lifelong partners in marriage.
We're still talking about politicians, aren't we? Because looking hypocritical is a pretty big concern when running for office.
Yes, I meant abortion--and adoption, and the daughter raising her child as a single parent. I don't think adoption is available as a hypocrite-free option to the conservative politician.
I'm not sure I understand what you're trying to prove with your analogy. Are you saying that Palin is so pure in her beliefs, that she could never regret her decisions leading up to her daughter's situation? Are you equating birth control with murder?
I'm saying this is not the scandal that some people want it to be. She believes that teaching birth control methods in schools will encourage teens to have more sex, and she believes that abortion should be illegal. I happen to disagree with her on both points, but the fact remains that she is reacting to this situation in a manner completely in line with her belief system.
I'm saying I don't think she "secretly wishes" that she had encouraged her daughter to use birth control--and to suggest that she does implies that her daughter's pregnancy 'serves her right,' and that the only reason she is against birth control education is because she was too stubborn to imagine what it would be like to experience an unwanted pregnancy in her own family. I think it's patronizing, and like I said earlier, partisan to the point of cruelty.
My analogy was attempting to draw a comparison with some moral belief that I guessed you would feel strongly about, just as she feels strongly against abortion and birth control education. I don't know if she regrets her childrearing decisions or not, but I would say that her behavior certainly doesn't indicate a change of heart, so speculating about it beyond that is at best irrelevant and at worst haughty. When you say
However, as a liberal, the parent and his/her child are free to choose from a variety options to deal with the situation, without looking hypocritical.
you are saying that she is not "free to choose" a path that you believe is ethical, for the specific reason that she would appear hypocritical. I'm saying she has already chosen not to follow those paths because she believes them to be unethical, and for no other reason.
If her daughter had an abortion, everyone would be screaming that she was a hypocrite. Because her daughter is going to keep the baby, everyone is screaming... that she's still a hypocrite, but one who is so desperate not to appear hypocritical that she will take the genuine path? That sneaky, sneaky politician.
And there's the rub. Currently, the Feds only fund abstinence-only education instead of ABC. Whether she likes it or not, the American Academy of Pediatrics has come out against abstinence-only education, deeming it less effective and safe than including contraception.
The federal government, however, has tied conditions to it's funding contrary to the opinions of most experts due to social bias. Schools are not even given a choice.
Her personal situation only highlights the fact that she's in denial about teen sexuality. The fact that her daughter is getting married is nice, but ignores the fact that marriage due to pregnancy is not the recipe for a lasting marriage, and that girls and boys do not always have sex with individuals that they would choose as lifelong partners in marriage.
All of which are reasons why you think she is wrong, and for the record I agree with you. But her own daughter's pregnancy doesn't illustrate that any better or worse than any other teen girl's pregnancy.
And furthermore, it still doesn't make it a scandal--if anything, this whole thing may very well give her a
boost among social conservatives, because she's walking the talk, 100%.
And there's the rub. Currently, the Feds only fund abstinence-only education instead of ABC. Whether she likes it or not, the American Academy of Pediatrics has come out against abstinence-only education, deeming it less effective and safe than including contraception.
Anchorage Daily News, covering the gubernatorial election in 2006:
Palin said last month that no woman should have to choose between her career, education and her child. She is pro-contraception and said she's a member of a pro-woman but anti-abortion group called Feminists for Life.
In all of the politics threads, UT is my hero. That is all.
I'm saying I don't think she "secretly wishes" that she had encouraged her daughter to use birth control--and to suggest that she does implies that her daughter's pregnancy 'serves her right,' and that the only reason she is against birth control education is because she was too stubborn to imagine what it would be like to experience an unwanted pregnancy in her own family. I think it's patronizing, and like I said earlier, partisan to the point of cruelty.
My analogy was attempting to draw a comparison with some moral belief that I guessed you would feel strongly about, just as she feels strongly against abortion and birth control education. I don't know if she regrets her childrearing decisions or not, but I would say that her behavior certainly doesn't indicate a change of heart, so speculating about it beyond that is at best irrelevant and at worst haughty.
Okay. So basically what you're saying is you thought my remark was mean.
The thing is, Palin's stances on these issues make me angry. So sure, it was meant partly to be mean. But haughty? Uh uh. I feel too strongly about the importance of sex education to just have a "haughty" attitude about her daughter's situation. Maybe Palin hasn't ever wished she did things differently, but I do. And since she's running for second in command of the country I live in, I feel like it's my business.
Again, one of the reasons for her selection was her appeal to social conservatives, with the implication that she could be a mother of 4 underage children (1 with special needs) and manage the number two job in the US. This incident does not support that.
The fact that her 17 year old got preggers does not refute it. It really means nothing more than her 17 year old had un-protected sex. I mean really weren't you 17 once? Did your parents control your actions when you were 17? Have you heard the 17 yr old on this very forum talk about what they have done? Drugs and sex have been part of it. Why have their parents not controlled them and prevented it? Why attack the girl, why didn't the boy wear a condom? No parent controls what their 17 year olds do. I have been through it twice with 2 kids and we have another about to be 17. How many 17 year olds do you have?
Will her husband be Mr. Mom while she is VP or will she require a nanny? Who will care for her baby when she travels overseas, especially to countries to which embassy personnel are discouraged from bringing dependents.
Who cares. That is their problem. Who cares for the babies of our deployed and deploying soldiers, sailors, marines, and AF personel? Who cares if he becomes Mr. Mom. Sounds like a personal choice they made when they got into the race as a family. Who cares if they have to hire a nanny. Why don't you think women should be successful and still have a family? You don't think they can do both? She has already proven that she can do both.
Most liberals and real libertarians won't care, figuring that anyone has the right to mess up their own family, but social conservatives will have a mental image of the baby crying for his mother while she boards Air Force Two.
Who says she "messed up her family"? You think that plenty of normal families have not gone what they are going through? Or is the fact that her 17 yr old made some poor decisions make them different. Social Conservatives will more likely look at them and think at least they supported her 17 yr old in her pregnancy and did not run out and get an abortion. Most people who support her in her run will not focus on some fantasy of her baby crying while she boards a plane.
The fact that she already has a family crisis while simply a state governor is not going to reassure anyone.
I still don't get why you are perpetrating the myth that a 5 month pregnant teen is a crisis. It is a crisis come and gone. The crisis occurred when they found out she was preggers, not 5 months after that. Or are state governors not allowed to have family crisises. Maybe you think they should just not have families. Hey, let's take a look at the things Clinton did while he was governor and see if any of them could be raised to the level of a "family crisis".
My fear is that, unfortunately, as a result of this VERY high profile teen pregnancy, teen pregnancy rates will climb. Thats not a good thing.
What's the big deal, especially if the daughter is getting married? I would assume that the daughter will set up housekeeping somewhere with her new husband, not move in with Mom and Dad. So who cares if Grandma has to go somewhere on Air Force 2? The child's mother is traditionally the one responsible for her own child. And if Grandma (and Grandpa) want to slip the newlyweds a few bucks, so they can buy their own home in Alaska or anywhere else, who cares about that either?
My fear is that, unfortunately, as a result of this VERY high profile teen pregnancy, teen pregnancy rates will climb. Thats not a good thing.
Did/do you have the same fears wrt Jamie Lynn Spears' pregnancy?
The rates actually started to increase a bit after that one....this one will only add to its impact. Rates had been in decline since 1991.
I dont mean to demonize teen pregnacy, but there are negatives associated with it....and those negatives are even more pronounced when the girl does not come from a rich family.
Do those pregnancy rates include abortions? That is, is it that the overall pregnancy rate is going up, or the rate of teen abortions is going down?
Abortion rates have fallen.
Could we maybe get a link?
Cool, I havn't read that article.
How about something recent enough to show the impact of JLS pregnancy?
Thanks!
I'm trying to find the actual data on the cdc site, but can't seem to find anything post 2005 (although the article you linked has cdc data from 2006). Am I just blind?
http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/fastats/teenbrth.htmThe rates actually started to increase a bit after that one....this one will only add to its impact. Rates had been in decline since 1991.
I dont mean to demonize teen pregnancy, but there are negatives associated with it....and those negatives are even more pronounced when the girl does not come from a rich family.
I will amend that this statement is not backed up by any data. I made a quick assumption, however, it still does not change my viewpoint that Palins daughters pregnancy will only add fuel to the fire of the increasing rates.
My fear is that, unfortunately, as a result of this VERY high profile teen pregnancy, teen pregnancy rates will climb. Thats not a good thing.
There is no evidence to support that statement.
Its pretty hard to find evidence for something that hasnt happened yet.
But since teen pregnancies have been on the rise for the last couple of years, a high profile pregnancy like this might only help to increase its acceptability.
I do hope, though, that it will bring to the forefront that giving teens good information about sex and contraceptives is better than telling them to just dont do it.
I still don't buy it. That is like saying there was a spike in drunk driving when Princess Di died. Just because the daughter of a high profile person has a teen pregnancy there would be no way to prove, much less measure any direct correlation with teen preg rates.
Some woman on the news has a kid that got knocked up. That won't change the decisions of the teens in the back row seat of the van. Not at all.
"But mom! Sarah Palin's daughter's pregnant!" :lol2:
I still don't buy it. That is like saying there was a spike in drunk driving when Princess Di died. Just because the daughter of a high profile person has a teen pregnancy there would be no way to prove, much less measure any direct correlation with teen preg rates.
My kid's don't know who Bristol Palin is, but watched the show Jamie Lynn Spears was on regularly... Her pregnancy was a great opportunity to talk about such things with my kids, several times actually...
I think events like this provide a great chance for parents to talk to their kids about it. Everyone should follow your actions in that regard.
Did/do you have the same fears wrt Jamie Lynn Spears' pregnancy?
I felt like that was a bad example as well.
Whether or not these high-profile teen pregnancies/births result in higher rates, my concern is that they send the message that it's okay for teens to give birth in this day and age.
Yes, it happens, it's always happened. But IMO, it's NOT okay. I'll appeal to everyone's common sense here, and state that most teen mothers do not receive the level of emotional and financial support that the Spearses and the Palins are assumed to be able to provide to their teen mother family members.
When I was in high school (80s), there were so many pregnant girls that they started a separate school on our campus for them to attend. I don't know how many stuck with it, but the program ended before I reached my senior year. Sex education was never part of our curriculum in regular high school.
To me, the very fact that Ms. Palin is able to run for VP with her views toward women's and girls' reproductive rights is worse than ironic; it's a slap in the face of the strides that (should) have been made over the past four decades.
To me, the very fact that Ms. Palin is able to run for VP with her views toward women's and girls' reproductive rights is worse than ironic; it's a slap in the face of the strides that (should) have been made over the past four decades.
Wait a minute. she doesn't share your beliefs and priorities so she shouldn't be eligible for office? please tell me that isn't what you meant, because that is no different than a christian sitting at home saying the reverse of obama. that misses the whole point of having an election to begin with.
Some woman on the news has a kid that got knocked up. That won't change the decisions of the teens in the back row seat of the van. Not at all.
Absolutely. Young people are going to have sex, or not. It's happened since the beginning of time (gasp...even before television!) and, barring mind control, will continue to happen in the future.
My kid's don't know who Bristol Palin is, but watched the show Jamie Lynn Spears was on regularly... Her pregnancy was a great opportunity to talk about such things with my kids, several times actually...
Using the occasion to talk to your kids about sex...perfect! As a parent, isn't that the most you can do? Ultimately, the kids grow up and make their own decisions, but opening the lines of communication (i.e. education) is the best defense.
Certainly better than fire and brimstone and you better not have sex nor shall you have access to birth control because it will just make you have sex and don't watch TV or movies because you will want to have sex...blah blah blah.
Sex talk in my household?
"DONT get her pregnant"
Thats me to my teenage stepson.
I hope he listens.
I thought this thread was going to be about Fleetwood Mac.
sigh.
Wait a minute. she doesn't share your beliefs and priorities so she shouldn't be eligible for office? please tell me that isn't what you meant, because that is no different than a christian sitting at home saying the reverse of obama. that misses the whole point of having an election to begin with.
Eh no, that's not what I was trying to say. What I meant was that if it weren't for the advances in society that women have achieved, largely because of rights that Palin opposes, she wouldn't even have the chance to run for VP.
she opposes abortion. that has exactly zero to do with her ability to run for VP.
i'm pretty sure she supports a woman's right to work, right to vote, and things like that, so i'm not really sure what exactly you are saying.
Bush believes all those same things and we have not had abortion outlawed, madates to teach creationism in school, a ban on gay marriage, so I don't really see the problem. Esp as long as there is a Democratically controlled Congress. So many people don't understand how this Republic works. It would be worse to have a Democratically controlled Congress with a Democratic President, as bad as it was to have the opposit for 6 years of Bush.
Got this email from an old friend - just thought I'd let you guys have at it.
TERRY ANDERSON, A BLACK LOS ANGELES TALK RADIO HOST, WENT DOWN A LIST OF THINGS SENATOR OBAMA HAS SAID THAT AREN'T EXACTLY CORRECT.
Tuesday, May 27, 2008 Obama's Not Exactlys
Obama's Not Exactlys:
1.) Selma March Got Me Born - NOT EXACTLY, your parents felt safe enough to have you in 1961 - Selma had no effect on your birth, as Selma was in 1965. (Google'Obama Selma ' for his full March 4, 2007 speech and articles about its various untruths.)
2.) Father Was A Goat Herder - NOT EXACTLY, he was a privileged, well educated youth, who went on to work with the Kenyan Government.
3.) Father Was A Proud Freedom Fighter - NOT EXACTLY, he was part of one of the most corrupt and violent governments Kenya has ever had.
4.) My Family Has Strong Ties To African Freedom - NOT EXACTLY, your cousin Raila Odinga has created mass violence in attempting to overturn a legitimate election in 2007, in Kenya . It is the first widespread violence in decades. The current government is pro-American but Odinga wants to overthrow it and establish Muslim Sharia law. Your half-brother, Abongo Obama, is Odinga's follower. You interrupted your New Hampshire campaigning to speak to Odinga on the phone. Check out the following link for verification of that....and for more.
Obama's cousin Odinga in Kenya ran for president and tried to get Sharia muslim law in place there. When Odinga lost the elections, his followers have burned Christians' homes and then burned men, women and children alive in a Christian church where they took shelter.. Obama SUPPORTED his cousin before the election process here started. Google Obama and Odinga and see what you get. No one wants to know the truth.
5.) My Grandmother Has Always Been A Christian - NOT EXACTLY, she does her daily Salat prayers at 5am according to her own interviews. Not to mention, Christianity wouldn't allow her to have been one of 14 wives to 1 man.
6.) My Name is African Swahili - NOT EXACTLY, your name is Arabic and 'Baraka' (from which Barack came) means 'blessed' in that language. Hussein is also Arabic and so is Obama.
Barack Hussein Obama is not half black. If elected, he would be the first Arab-American President, not the first black President. Barack Hussein Obama is 50% Caucasian from his mother's side and 43.75% Arabic and 6.25% African Negro from his father's side. While Barack Hussein Obama's father was from Kenya , his father's family was mainly Arabs.. Barack Hussein Obama's father was only 12.5% African Negro and 87.5% Arab (his father's birth certificate even states he's Arab, not African Negro). From....and for more....go to.....
http://www.arcadeathome.com/newsboy.phtml?Barack_Hussein_Obama_-_Arab-American,_only_6.25%_African
7.) I Never Practiced Islam - NOT EXACTLY, you practiced it daily at school, where you were registered as a Muslim and kept that faith for 31 years, until your wife made you change, so you could run for office.
4-3-08 Article 'Obama was 'quite religious in islam'' http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=60559
8.) My School In Indonesia Was Christian - NOT EXACTLY, you were registered as Muslim there and got in trouble in Koranic Studies for making faces (check your own book).
February 28, 2008. Kristoff from the New York Times a year ago: Mr. Obama recalled the opening lines of the Arabic call to prayer, reciting them with a first-rate accent. In a remark that seemed delightfully uncalculated (it'll give Alabama voters heart attacks), Mr. Obama described the call to prayer as 'one of the prettiest sounds on Earth at sunset.' This is just one example of what Pamela is talking about when she says 'Obama's narrative is being altered, enhanced and manipulated to whitewash troubling facts.'
9.) I Was Fluent In Indonesian - NOT EXACTLY, not one teacher says you could speak the language.
10.) Because I Lived In Indonesia , I Have More Foreign Experience - NOT EXACTLY, you were there from the ages of 6 to 10, and couldn't even speak the language. What did you learn except how to study the Koran and watch cartoons.
11.) I Am Stronger On Foreign Affairs - NOT EXACTLY, except for Africa (surprise) and the Middle East (bigger surprise), you have never been anywhere else on the planet and thus have NO experience with our closest allies.
12.) I Blame My Early Drug Use On Ethnic Confusion - NOT EXACTLY, you were quite content in high school to be Barry Obama, no mention of Kenya and no mention of struggle to identify - your classmates said you were just fine
13.)An Ebony Article Moved Me To Run For Office - NOT EXACTLY, Ebony has yet to find the article you mention in your book. It doesn't, and never did, exist.
14.) A Life Magazine Article Changed My Outlook On Life - NOT EXACTLY, Life has yet to find the article you mention in your book. It doesn't, and never did, exist.
15.) I Won't Run On A National Ticket In '08 - NOT EXACTLY, here you are, despite saying, live on TV, that you would not have enough experience by then, and you are all about having experience first.
16.) Voting 'Present' is Common In Illinois Senate - NOT EXACTLY, they are common for YOU, but not many others have 130 NO VOTES.
17.) Oops, I Misvoted - NOT EXACTLY, only when caught by church groups and Democrats, did you beg to change your misvote.
18.) I Was A Professor Of Law - NOT EXACTLY, you were a senior lecturer ON LEAVE.
19.) I Was A Constitutional Lawyer - NOT EXACTLY, you were a senior lecturer ON LEAVE.
20.) Without Me, There Would Be No Ethics Bill - NOT EXACTLY, you didn't write it, introduce it, change it or create it.
21.) The Ethics Bill Was Hard To Pass - NOT EXACTLY, it took just 14 days from start to finish.
22.) I Wrote A Tough Nuclear Bill - NOT EXACTLY, your bill was rejected by your own party for its pandering and lack of all regulation - mainly because of your Nuclear donor, Exelon, from which David Axelrod came.
23.) I Have Released My State Records - NOT EXACTLY, as of March, 2008, state bills you sponsored or voted for have yet to be released, exposing all the special interests pork hidden within.
24.) I Took On The Asbestos Altgeld Gardens Mess - NOT EXACTLY, you were part of a large group of people who remedied Altgeld Gardens . You failed to mention anyone else but yourself, in your books.
25.) My Economics Bill Will Help America - NOT EXACTLY, your 111 economic policies were just combined into a proposal which lost 99-0, and even YOU voted against your own bill.
26.) I Have Been A Bold Leader In Illinois - NOT EXACTLY, even your own supporters claim to have not seen BOLD action on your part.
27.) I Passed 26 Of My Own Bills In One Year - NOT EXACTLY, they were not YOUR bills, but rather handed to you, after their creation by a fellow Senator, to assist you in a future bid for higher office.
28.) No One on my campaign contacted Canada about NAFTA - NOT EXACTLY, the Canadian Government issued the names and a memo of the conversation your campaign had with them.
29.) I Am Tough On Terrorism - NOT EXACTLY, you missed the Iran Resolution vote on terrorism and your good friend Ali Abunimah supports the destruction of Israel .
30.) I Want All Votes To Count - NOT EXACTLY, you said let the delegates decide.
31.) I Want Americans To Decide - NOT EXACTLY, you prefer caucuses that limit the vote, confuse the voters, force a public vote, and only operate during small windows of time.
32.) I passed 900 Bills in the State Senate - NOT EXACTLY, you passed 26, most of which you didn't write yourself.
33.) I Believe In Fairness, Not Tactics - NOT EXACTLY, you used tactics to eliminate Alice Palmer from running against you.
34.) I Don't Take PAC Money - NOT EXACTLY, you take loads of it.
35.) I don't Have Lobbysists - NOT EXACTLY, you have over 47 lobbyists, and counting.
36.) My Campaign Had Nothing To Do With The 1984 Ad - NOT EXACTLY, your own campaign worker made the ad on his Apple in one afternoon.
37.) I Have Always Been Against Iraq - NOT EXACTLY, you weren't in office to vote against it AND you have voted to fund it every single time.
World News Daily? FFS, just because UG gives you a cup doesn't mean you have to drink the koolaid, buddy. Arcade at home, emulators and ROMs? Yeah, that's where I go to cite my political truthinessifications.
It is a shame I have to soil my deleted items box with crap like this.
I just posted it - that's all. Never said I agreed or disagreed with any of it. I must admit to finding some of it rather amusing tho.
It doesn't survive
Snopes very well...
I just posted it - that's all.
Not exactly. We all bear responsibility for what we post.
Just curious- does anyone here actually have a teen daughter who has gotten pregnant? I did (she was 17), and thank goodness for the school that catered to pregnant girls. It took her an extra year, but she stayed in school, got her diploma, and did the graduation ceremony, all as a single mother. So it can be done, and now she has a job, and makes enough money to support herself, and her 10 yr old son. Not the path I would have chosen for her, but she is surviving.
Not exactly. We all bear responsibility for what we post.
I take full responsibility for posting it, of course. But I wanted to get your (collective) take on it. You guys are infinitely better at getting to the bottom of some things and most times I return your refutations to the original sender.
Classicman, your post immediately made me realize that I need to take all the stuff being said about Palin with a grain of salt.
Thats no fun though...:headshake!
Not exactly. We all bear responsibility for what we post.
From taking responsibility for what I post to how to decide whether to post at all. When I'm uncertain about posting something, I find these questions helpful:
1 -- Is it true?
2 -- Is it kind?
3 -- Is it helpful or necessary?
If the answer is yes in all cases, then I feel confident that it is a worthwhile post. The more no answers I get, the less likely it is that I'm making a worthwhile post.
1 - unknown - main reason for posting
2 - typically irrelevant - whether it is mean or harmful more likely..
3 - yes/possibly - another reason I posted it
Here is another link I found over lunch - from the New York Post -
Have at it
Repeating over and over that voting against Obama is racist only makes nonracist people embarrassed to admit that they plan to vote for McCain.
Another rich irony is that the only racists who matter in this election are the ones in the Democratic Party. (News flash: The reason Republicans aren't voting for the Democratic nominee is . . . they're Republicans.) A new AP-Yahoo News poll claims that racial prejudice is a significant factor among the independents and Democrats Obama needs to win, specifically among Hillary Clinton's primary voters. The pollsters' statistical modeling posits that support for Obama may be as much as 6 percentage points lower than it would be if no white racism existed.
~snip~ to the extent that race is a factor, here's the richest irony of all: Obama's problem is with precisely those voters the Democratic Party claims to fight for, working- and middle-class white folks. Of course, Democrats can't openly complain that their own vital constituency is racist.
If the media were more objective, we'd be hearing a lot more about the racism at the heart of the Democratic Party. But such objectivity would cause too much cognitive dissonance for a press corps that defines "racist" as shorthand for Republican and sees itself as the publicity arm of the Obama campaign.
The “Earmarks” Issue
Why oppose pork-barrel spending, also known as earmarks? Because it sets a bad example, for one thing; and because it is all funded by borrowing, and so adds interminably to the Federal budget deficit; and because it is tainted with fraud, abuse, and self-dealing.
As Sen. Everett Dirksen once said, “A billion here, a billion there, and next thing you know, you’re talking real money.”
The estimates of current “earmark” amounts range from $18,000,000,000.00 to more than $30,000,000,000.00 per year. This is not the total impact, however; because earmarks are 100 per cent deficit spending, they also add to the Federal interest we pay every year.
Deficit spending is a tax increase imposed on future taxpayers. By definition, those paying taxes in the future are not here to vote. Makes it much easier to burden them with taxes, doesn’t it?
On this issue, John McCain wins, hands-down, and his past performance indicates that he will make good on his promise to battle earmarks. But don’t take my word for it - - judge for yourself. Set forth below is a McCain versus Obama comparison on earmarks requested for Federal fiscal year 2008.
Earmarks requested by Sen. John McCain for fiscal year 2008: None.
Earmarks requested by Sen. Barack Obama for fiscal year 2008 (word-for-word, Sen. Obama’s own press release):
It totaled up at 900 million or so.
[bold mine]
McCain had criticized earmarks from Palin
WASILLA, ALASKA - For much of his long career in Washington, John McCain has been throwing darts at the special spending system known as earmarking, through which powerful members of Congress can deliver federal cash for pet projects back home with little or no public scrutiny. He's even gone so far as to publish "pork lists" detailing these financial favors.
Three times in recent years, McCain's catalogs of "objectionable" spending have included earmarks for this small Alaska town, requested by its mayor at the time -- Sarah Palin.
Now, McCain, the likely Republican presidential nominee, has chosen Palin as his running mate, touting her as a reformer just like him.
McCain has made opposition to pork-barrel spending a central theme of his 2008 campaign. "Earmarking deprives federal agencies of scarce resources, at the whim of individual members of Congress," McCain has said.
Classic! stop repeating those facts. It confuses people! :lol2:
HOMELESS 'DRIVEN' TO VOTE OBAMA
CLEVELAND - Volunteers supporting Barack Obama picked up hundreds of people at homeless shelters, soup kitchens and drug-rehab centers and drove them to a polling place yesterday on the last day that Ohioans could register and vote on the same day, almost no questions asked.
The huge effort by a pro-Obama group, Vote Today Ohio, takes advantage of a quirk in the state's elections laws that allows people to register and cast ballots at the same time without having to prove residency.
Republicans have argued that the window could lead to widespread voter fraud because officials wouldn't have an opportunity to verify registration information before ballots were cast.
Among the volunteers were Yori Stadlin and Vivian Lehrer of the Upper West Side, who got married last week and decided to spend their honeymoon shepherding voters to the Cuyahoga County Board of Elections.
Early today, Stadlin's van picked up William Woods, 59, at the soup kitchen of the Bishop Cosgrove Center.
"I never voted before," Woods said, because of a felony conviction that previously barred him from the polls. "Without this service, I would have had no way to get here."
Well isn't that last bit special?
Oh my Gawd!
People voting. Obeying the law. Encouraging civic responsibility and involvement. WTF?
Don't the republicans know any bums or crooks? Or are they just unwilling to soil the upholstery?
Seriously, what a non-news story. The implication that there's some illegal activity here... where's your smoking gun?
Yes, the republicans have protested. They took their case to the Ohio Supreme Court and lost. This sounds like sour grapes to me.
Read for yourself.Moderates hate when homeless people vote?
Even insane people are allowed to vote. Unless you are currently in prison, you are allowed to vote.
Now. This isn't about me or how many times I voted. It's about equality!
:biglaugha
Good one Shawnee.
Note the thread it is posted in and that I neither condoned nor condemned it. I just posted it as food for fodder. Way to jump all over something that didn't exist. Boy you all seem a little overtly sensitive lately.
If "food for fodder" is not intended to mean "fodder for discussion", maybe you should define it. You seem to be taking the response to your post a bit "overtly" sensitively.
Moderates hate when homeless people vote?
That's "jumping all over something?"
Really, and I mean this with all due respect, it seems you are the sensitive one these days. No one can joke with you, you cry "moderate" over and over then consistently use the far right view to, seemingly, get something over on the liberals, then when someone calls you on it you say you're being attacked, the person is being unfair, or you claim moderation again.
Seriously, Classic, what's up? :trulyconcerned:
Seriously? Shawnee? Are you - I really hate to say this, but I honestly don't believe you. OK? - Put me back on ignore like you said I was and lets just leave it at that - Mmmkay?
If you were "truly concerned" you would have responded to one of the several PM's I sent you.
If "food for fodder" is not intended to mean "fodder for discussion", maybe you should define it. You seem to be taking the response to your post a bit "overtly" sensitively.
Well then HM, maybe someone should be discussing that instead of the poster. You think?
I have not received any PMs from you, because I DID have you on ignore, because your response to me when I challenged you was, as is typical for you these days, "put me on ignore if you don't like it."
So, I did. I don't believe ignored people's PMs come through, but I took you off yesterday and I've received none since.
You're not yourself these days. I understand, lord knows I've been out there more than once. But it's not just me you're mad at, that I can see clearly.
Classicman, Liberty University, which is a private christian university located in the battleground state of Virginia, has about 11,000 students. The overwhelming majority of them are conservative Republicans. Many of them are from out of state.
The university administration has been actively working to get those out of state and unregistered students to register to vote locally in Virginia because most of them come from home states that are solidly going for one candidate or the other. Their vote counts more in Virginia.
Anyway, not only is Liberty University registering all these new voters, it is also CLOSING THE SCHOOL on election day to give everyone the chance to vote, and it is driving the students to the polls.
Jerry Fallwell, the founder of the university, stated "Liberty University's 11,000 students and 4,000 faculty and staff could cause Liberty to become known as the university that elected a president!"
As a moderate, how do you feel about this?
Well then HM, maybe someone should be discussing that instead of the poster. You think?
BigV did, in the post immediately following yours. Brianna did, two posts later. And two posts after that, you started complaining.
And, as to the substance of your complaint, posting an article without comment is implicit support of that article. Posting an article and following it with a snide comment in support of that article moves a bit closer to explicit support of the article. But if you feel that your intentions were misinterpreted and you are hoping for more discussion of the substance of the article, you could offer your take on it.
As for me, I'll second BigV and Brianna.
What Obama's team is doing is standard operating procedure. It's called "walking-around money". You roust people off the street. You give em ten bucks and point them where to go and who to vote for.
Due to happen in Philly, too
It's just the machine operating like the machine operates.
So are the tricks used by the GOP to get voters of the rolls.
What Obama's team is doing is standard operating procedure. It's called "walking-around money". You roust people off the street. You give em ten bucks and point them where to go and who to vote for.
Due to happen in Philly, too
It's just the machine operating like the machine operates.
While I don't doubt that that happens frequently, the article seems to be about paying the campaign people (who would otherwise be volunteers). Maybe some of them convert themselves back to "volunteers" by passng it out to potential voters...
Classicman, Liberty University, which is a private christian university located in the battleground state of Virginia, has about 11,000 students. The overwhelming majority of them are conservative Republicans. Many of them are from out of state. The university administration has been actively working to get those out of state and unregistered students to register to vote locally in Virginia because most of them come from home states that are solidly going for one candidate or the other. Their vote counts more in Virginia.
Anyway, not only is Liberty University registering all these new voters, it is also CLOSING THE SCHOOL on election day to give everyone the chance to vote, and it is driving the students to the polls.
Jerry Fallwell, the founder of the university, stated "Liberty University's 11,000 students and 4,000 faculty and staff could cause Liberty to become known as the university that elected a president!"
As a moderate, how do you feel about this?
Hmm seems like a loaded question to me. Then again I've already been accused of being overtly sensitive once today. Maybe I am.
I find this a very different set of circumstances - everyone knows what this school and Falwell are about. I cannot really see the comparison between this and picking people out of homeless shelters and off the streets. Sorry.
Its still an effort at stacking the deck, isn't it?
Have you lot considered compulsory voting?
Down Under, you must turn up, get your name crossed off the roll, take your ballot paper into a booth, wave a pencil over it, and put it in the ballot box. (EDIT: There is no machine counting - poll workers do that by hand - but we almost always know who the new government is within 6 hours of the poll closing. There is a paper trail for a thorough count and any recounts that may be called for.)
It is also illegal to deliberately cast an informal vote, but it is a gazillion times more illegal to try to find out how someone else voted. So in effect, you have to turn up, but you don't really have to vote for any particular candidate.
Having worked at elections, a few people ( <5%) do this.
I like this because without compulsory voting, moderates are less likely to vote, while extremists are more likely, and extremist whackos (OMG, where did I get that phrase?) are over-represented in the final result.
The fine for not voting is $20. :lol:
Have you lot considered compulsory voting?
Down Under, you must turn up, get your name crossed off the roll, take your ballot paper into a booth, wave a pencil over it, and put it in the ballot box. (EDIT: There is no machine counting - poll workers do that by hand - but we almost always know who the new government is within 6 hours of the poll closing. There is a paper trail for a thorough count and any recounts that may be called for.)
It is also illegal to deliberately cast an informal vote, but it is a gazillion times more illegal to try to find out how someone else voted. So in effect, you have to turn up, but you don't really have to vote for any particular candidate.
Having worked at elections, a few people ( <5%) do this.
I like this because without compulsory voting, moderates are less likely to vote, while extremists are more likely, and extremist whackos (OMG, where did I get that phrase?) are over-represented in the final result.
The fine for not voting is $20. :lol:
Might work if we only used the population of Texas, sort of like you all down there. Not in this country. People love to compare our health situation to Canada, France, and esp the UK. Well you know what, combine all those populations and you still don't come close to the number of people in the US. You can't take a micro economy and compare the workable solutions to a macro economy. On top of the South Park would make lots of fun of you... :D
But they could use all those $20 fines to pay for the bail out.
For a taste of some real uninformed dialog, and I use the term loosely,
click here.For a taste of some real uninformed dialog, and I use the term loosely, click here.
Most of the bloggers spelled Ayers name incorrectly too. Oh well I guess everyone gets to vote no matter how ill informed they are.
Barack Obama (D)
Expenditures Breakdown
I cannot quote the site, so I'm just providing the link.
It is pretty interesting to see where the money goes.
Polling $21,500,862
Travel $39,345,592
~~~~~~~~~~~~~
John McCain (R)
Expenditures Breakdown
Travel $19,812,518
Loan Payments $8,695,028
Oh well I guess everyone gets to vote no matter how ill informed they are.
Unfortunately.... rag on me all you want but I think a short quiz at the polls before you cast your vote should be required. So you know, people at least know where Iraq is, etc. before helping to decide who is the next prez.
I was not ragging on you Bullitt - that was more directed at the likes of ACORN and its endless subsidiaries and whatnot. Pulling people off the street and outta shelters to vote.
I was not ragging on you Bullitt - that was more directed at the likes of ACORN and its endless subsidiaries and whatnot. Pulling people off the street and outta shelters to vote.
People living on the street or in shelters will most likely be served better under Obama than under McCain. Why shouldn't they vote for the candidate who serves their interest more? Seriously, why do you have a problem with them voting? Do you have to be rich to vote? wtf?
No, monetary worth should have no bearing on ones desire or ability to vote. Its all part of being an American. I just prefer that those who actually want to and are motivated enough to vote do so instead of those who are pulled out of a trash can or whatever by some group whether it be R's or D's.
No, monetary worth should have no bearing on ones desire or ability to vote. Its all part of being an American. I just prefer that those who actually want to and are motivated enough to vote do so instead of those who are pulled out of a trash can or whatever by some group whether it be R's or D's.
Given that a lot of these people have mental illnesses you have to wonder if they are promising them a hot meal for a vote for Obama. How could you be sure they are not doing something like that? It would be totally illegal to buy the vote. Do you think they may be telling them to vote for McCain?
I think both sides do this shit. I don't think either one should. Thats my point and I'm sticking to it.
I think both sides do this shit. I don't think either one should. Thats my point and I'm sticking to it.
So you are changing your position from post #87 of this thread where you saw no problem with the Republicans doing it, and only complained when the Democrats did it?
can we seriously get this election over with so the cellar can return to normal?
Because the election has brought out people's observational skills? :rolleyes:
Lookout, I was going to jokingly say "Fuck you and the horse you rode in on!" but I can't bring myself to do it.
no S123, because election years in the cellar get annoying because otherwise reasonable people become so ridiculously caught up in the partisan spin that their ability to approach the issues in a logical, nonbiased manner becomes increasingly stunted up until about 7 PM on election night at which point one side starts the "yippee!" taunts while the other side starts checking real estate and job leads in other countries because the sky is falling.
It's like clockwork.
I know, but glatt did have a good point. Just sayin'
Besides, I know I'm never reasonable, and this is just one more venue for my unreasonableness. :)
All kidding aside (is that an allowed colloquialism?) I agree with you: I can't wait for the election to be over either. I see myself getting caught up in it, angry, argumentative, a real brat sometimes.
On one foot I love to see people get fired up over something so important. On the other foot I hate to see the feelings it causes. Some of us are just so passionate about it. That is good, and bad.
So you are changing your position from post #87 of this thread where you saw no problem with the Republicans doing it, and only complained when the Democrats did it?
No.
I love when people get fired up. Unfortunately we have passed the point in US history where US citizens will get fired up about the problem (the politicians) because they are too busy getting fired up over the symptoms (the hot buttons politicians push to gain power).
Obama's a douche who will not better your life in any meaningful way. If elected and alive he will stand before you in less than four years telling you to re-elect him so he can solve all our problems.
McCain's a douche who will not better your life in any meaningful way. If elected and alive he will stand before you in less than four years telling you to re-elect him so he can solve all our problems.
I'm not a big Palin fan, but I will say this - at least she hasn't made a career in the beltway. I would like the D's to find people like that. I would like the R's to find people like that. I would like to see the government of this country be comprised of individuals who actually do know what life is like in the world that you and I live in.
I'm not holding my breath.
****
In my fantasy world Tom Clancy's scenario for a plane crashing in DC and taking out the president, most of congress, most of the senate, most of the supreme court is a possibility. Real people gain the opportunity to take up the empty seats and work towards the good of the nation rather than the good of the lobbyists. like I said, it's my fantasy world.
Well NOW you're just pissing me off, you $#@%^&%*.
Just messin'
No.
You aren't being very clear.
Do you think it's fine for Republicans, like those at Liberty University, to sign up more Republicans to vote?
No, monetary worth should have no bearing on ones desire or ability to vote. Its all part of being an American. I just prefer that those who actually want to and are motivated enough to vote do so instead of those who are pulled out of a trash can or whatever by some group whether it be R's or D's.
Pulled out of a trash can? Are you serious?
People who live on the street and in shelters have just as much right to vote as anyone else. Not every homeless person is mentally ill, and even then, there are varying degrees. Seriously, there are not a bunch of completely mentally incapacitated people living in "trash cans."
I find this a very different set of circumstances - everyone knows what this school and Falwell are about. I cannot really see the comparison between this and picking people out of homeless shelters and off the streets.
Monetary worth should have no bearing on ones desire or ability to vote. Its all part of being an American. I just prefer that those who actually want to and are motivated enough to vote do so instead of those who are pulled out of a trash can or whatever by some group whether it be R's or D's.
Where am I unclear? In the first I disagreed that the two scenarios you put forth were comparable. In my latter post I simply reaffirmed my earlier position.
Ladies and Gentlemen, I give you: Classicman Palin!
Do you think it's fine for Republicans, like those at Liberty University, to sign up more Republicans to vote?
yes, no - you see there are two questions there. Although, and I'll say it again to be clear, I do not view registering college students the same as registering people living on the street or in a shelter.
I'm not sure what "yes, no" means.
Are you saying that it's OK for Republicans, like those at Liberty University, to be signing up more Republicans to vote, but it's not OK for Democrats, like ACORN, to be signing up more Democrats, like the homeless people, to vote?
You aren't being very clear.
Do you think it's fine for Republicans, to sign up more Republicans to vote?
Yes
signing up homeless people to vote?
no*
* These are predominantly votes that are garnered to simply skew elections on a one time basis. The college students are much more likely to be voting in future elections and will be more educated and informed voters.
My personal opinion is that everyone should be registered to vote while in High School which would eliminate virtually any need for these organizations, both D & R equivalents to exist.
Many states have a "Motor Voter" law, which connects registration to renewing your driver's license. Everyone who drives is basically automatically registered unless they take the time to opt out for some reason.
Good idea, don't let those pedestrians, and bicycle riding hippies, vote. :haha:
The college students are much more likely to be ... more educated and informed voters.
Horshit.
Horshit.
IIRC, Smooth is a college teacher.
So am I (admittedly, in a different country).
I second his opinion.
A significant proportion of these kids don't have a bloody clue. Many more are totally apathetic. Those that are into politics are excitedly gobbling up whatever party line they first got a taste for. A very small number are actually intelligent, informed, and thoughtful.
That's true Zen, but on the other hand (the one I think classic was getting at) is there are a hell of a lot of people out there who don't even have any basic intelligence or information on which to base their vote. I've been astounded at the statements some of the people I know have made about politicians and politics, and interestingly, the ones who make the most astounding statements are the ones with the least education.
I'm not saying this is the case for all, but I'd lay money on better educated people making more informed decisions...whether they've been informed with good or bad information is beside the point.
yes, no - you see there are two questions there. Although, and I'll say it again to be clear, I do not view registering college students the same as registering people living on the street or in a shelter.
*Blinks*
Have you any idea how many returning soldiers are living rough, on the streets of America's cities? One estimate I heard recently said about 150,000. Are you aware that entire families are sometimes homeless, with mum and the youngest living in lodgings and dad and older brother in whatever shelter they can find? How many of the homeless are just people who've somehow disappeared off the radar, slipped through the cracks and become non-people?
So there's a higher proportion of the homeless population suffering various forms of mental illness and drug/alcohol dependency than amongst the housed...at what point does mental illness render you unfit to vote? Depression? Suicidal tendencies? Taking nicks out of your arm with a razor blade of a nighttime? Bad dreams and panic attacks? None of these are reserved for those without a roof.
You seem morally appalled that these people might be swayed for the price of a hot meal; yet the Republican candidate stands in a town hall and says "I'll give you a $5,000 dollar,
refundable tax credit..."
*shakes head* I'm going to step out of this discussion I think, before I fall out with people unnecessarily.
Wow.
Sounds like adhereance to the Constitution, with all its byzantine twists and turns about God in schools and freedom of the press etc doesn't really apply when it comes to universal sufferage. Then again, the Declaration of Independence was written by slave owners, so I suppose it's not really worth the paper it's written on.
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, except those that are black or live in trash cans, but all other men are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. --That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, although not all of the governed should be allowed to vote.
classicman, I'm at a loss for words.
Actually, I think Dana and Sundae cover it best.
1) I am NOT trying to stop anyone from voting - I really think you are all missing what I am trying to say. Everyone should has the right to vote EVERY-FUCKING-ONE. (except felons and such)
That part clear? I hope so.
2) Everyone should vote EVERY-FUCKING-ONE.
What I do not think is right nor fair or just is people and/or organizations with political agendas, funded by MY TAX DOLLARS, going out onto the street and registering any & everyone they can find, dig up or wake up just to support their political views and to skew election results. No I do not believe in that - that is all.
Classic...organizations like Acorn offer assistance to people who wouldn't ordinarily be able to perform the task themselves. Your reaction to this seems to be a direct result of the skewed reporting on Acorns true function. Try reading some articles that actually show a more favorable light on Acorn and see what you think.
*Blinks*
You seem morally appalled that these people might be swayed for the price of a hot meal; yet the Republican candidate stands in a town hall and says "I'll give you a $5,000 dollar, refundable tax credit..."
*shakes head* I'm going to step out of this discussion I think, before I fall out with people unnecessarily.
I am not morally appalled at them at all. PLEASE do not put words in my mouth. The simple fact that their vote WILL be swayed as YOU put it is another reason these organizations should not use our tax dollars for their political agendas, whether I agree with them or not.
I am NOT attacking the people nor their fortunes or lack thereof in life.
Classic...organizations like Acorn offer assistance to people who wouldn't ordinarily be able to perform the task themselves. Your reaction to this seems to be a direct result of the skewed reporting on Acorns true function. Try reading some articles that actually show a more favorable light on Acorn and see what you think.
I've read plenty, thanks. I simply disagree with these organizations using my tax dollars to propagate their agenda. There should be a more unbiased nonpartisan way.
SG - Please do NOT bring race into this, in fact you are completely wrong about what I am saying and what I believe.
Unfortunately.... rag on me all you want but I think a short quiz at the polls before you cast your vote should be required. So you know, people at least know where Iraq is, etc. before helping to decide who is the next prez.
How is this any different? You folks are unreal.
SG - Please do NOT bring race into this, in fact you are completely wrong about what I am saying and what I believe.
I apologise if it appeared the comment about blacks was aimed at you. I was in fact referring to the fact that the Founding Fathers owned slaves.
No prob - Pigpile is a fun game to play ... except when you are the wabbit.
Have you any idea how many returning soldiers are living rough, on the streets of America's cities? One estimate I heard recently said about 150,000.
Higher than that! Not just returning soldiers but vets of all wars. It's appalling, but these guys have the same mental illness and/or substance abuse rates that most homeless suffer from.
It could be that historically, otherwise unemployable people went into the military, though that's not as true as it once was.
Actually, I think Dana and Sundae cover it best.
I'll agree with that.
When you start limiting voting rights because you don't think someone "knows enough" you are using subjective criteria which goes completely against the principles this country was
supposed to be founded upon.
Who makes that call?
Seriously disturbing. I find that this concept makes me more frightened even than I am apparently supposed to be at the word "socialist" which has been tossed around like some political hacky sack. :cool:
I thought that's why women weren't allowed to vote until recently.
Well, we need to discriminate against the right people. Women can't be trusted, you know how emotional they are: kind of throws informed voting out the window. :rolleyes:
Pico -
Regarding skewed reporting - a link from another thread from UT.
So what are you saying Classic.
And black people because they aren't even human. They are dumb anyway, according the test statistics up my ass. No blacks, no women, and screw the irish too just for the hell of it. I have heard they are drunks, and may not vote the way I want them too.
Oh hai..I don't even know what you guys are talking about. lol! Carry on.
Classic...organizations like Acorn offer assistance to people who wouldn't ordinarily be able to perform the task themselves. Your reaction to this seems to be a direct result of the skewed reporting on Acorns true function. Try reading some articles that actually show a more favorable light on Acorn and see what you think.
Pico - Regarding skewed reporting - a link from another thread from UT.
So what are you saying Classic.
I must be speaking a new language that only I understand thats what I'm thinkin at this point.
What I'm saying isn't fit to post. :: Biting tongue::
:rolleyes:
I really need you to clarify yourself a bit better than that. I am not going to guess at the connections you are making. Please spell them out.
Hey, now I really don't know what you guys are talking about. For real this time.
:)
:rolleyes:
I really need you to clarify yourself a bit better than that. I am not going to guess at the connections you are making. Please spell them out.
Nevermind - Its just not worth it - I reread my earlier post 4 or 5 times now and that is crystal clear to me.
And black people because they aren't even human. They are dumb anyway, according the test statistics up my ass. No blacks, no women, and screw the irish too just for the hell of it. I have heard they are drunks, and may not vote the way I want them too.
Oh hai..I don't even know what you guys are talking about. lol! Carry on.
You forgot to mention the animal towel heads. Come on. Really. What about them?
Captain, Road Prison 36: What we got here is... failure to communicate.
I knew that this morning. ClassicFAILman
McCain Backer Attacked, Mutilated in Pittsburgh
Posted Oct 23rd 2008 4:27PM by TMZ Staff
McCainHere's what went down with the McCain/Palin supporter who was allegedly attacked in Pennsylvania last night.
According to Pittsburgh cops, around 9:30 PM last night, a female was robbed after she went to the ATM. The victim says during the robbery, the assailant saw the McCain/Palin sticker on her car and became "enraged." He struck her and knocked her down, and allegedly carved a "B" on her cheek.
The assailant is still at large. Police tell us all they have is a description -- a man, 6'4", with dark skin and dark clothes.
A McCain spokesman confirmed to TMZ the victim volunteered in McCain's Pennsylvania office.
Story developing ...
Is Barry getting nervous enough to start attacking people himself?
I guess we can assume that particular crazy person has already cast their vote, then?
McCain Backer Attacked, Mutilated in Pittsburgh
RumorCrazy person, as in the young lady who made this story up? ;)
Not a rumor, per se. The chick came out and said she made it up. Now I want to know, did she beat the living crap out of herself. or ask a friend to do it?
It worked though. Did you see the McCaininites jump up and down and point? :lol:
Each side believes the worst of the other. In this case, the Democrats now have one more more piece of ammunition in their belief that the Republicans are evil.
Each side believes the worst of the other. In this case, the Democrats now have one more more piece of ammunition in their belief that the Republicans are evil.
I think it just shows that not ALL the crazies are democats!
Josie and the Democats.
lol @ Cic - I've seen about 20 Yard signs for McCain with spray paint on them. I've seen piles of Obama yard signs in the trash at the Wawa. Same shit different year. WTFE I'm ready for 2009.
Each side believes the worst of the other. In this case, the Democrats now have one more more piece of ammunition in their belief that the Republicans are evil.
I'll give you that and raise you another Palin rumor that was BS. :D
Not sure which one you are talking about, but there have been a few of them, so I'll give you that too.
Here is an interesting site. Along the lines of snopes and they even address a recent internet posting about snopes.com about halfway down. Interesting.
http://www.truthorfiction.com/Now I want to know, did she beat the living crap out of herself. or ask a friend to do it?
Did someone manipsnate her and her family???
Did someone manipsnate her and her family???
And did they manipsinate her to discredit Obama or McCain? *knowing look*
I'll give you that and raise you another Palin rumor that was BS. :D
Palin put a hex on the Philadelphia Flyers. ;)
Palin put the evil eye
on a farm in Uruguay.
Palin put a hex on the Philadelphia Flyers. ;)
And that baseball team from Fl. :D
And Oklahoma when they played Texas.
And Kyle Bush when he lost his engine before the race.
And on that bridge in Mn. right before it fell in the river.
God the list is just too long.... ;)
Notice to All Employees
As of November 5, 2008, when the next President is officially elected into office, our company will instill a few new policies which are in keeping with his new, inspiring issues of change and fairness:
1. All salespeople will be pooling their sales and bonuses into a common pool that will be divided equally between all of you. This will serve to give those of you who are underachieving a “fair shake.”
2. All low level workers will be pooling their wages, including overtime, into a common pool, dividing it equally amongst yourselves. This will help those who are “too busy for overtime” to reap the rewards from those who have more spare time and can work extra hours.
3. All top management will now be referred to as “the government.” We will not participate in this “pooling” experience because the law doesn't apply to us.
4. The “government” will give eloquent speeches to all employees every week, encouraging it's workers to continue to work hard “for the good of all.”
5. The employees will be thrilled with these new policies because it's “good to spread the wealth". Those of you who have underachieved will finally get an opportunity; those of you who have worked hard and had success will feel more “patriotic.”
6. The last few people who were hired should clean out their desks. Don't feel bad, though, because our new President will give you free healthcare, free handouts, free oil for heating your home, free food stamps, and he'll let you stay in your home for as long as you want even if you can't pay your mortgage. If you appeal directly to our democratic congress, you might even get a free flatscreen TV and a coupon for free haircuts (shouldn't all Americans be entitled to nice looking hair?)
If for any reason you are not happy with the new policies, feel free to appeal this to the senate or congress, not that it'll do you any good.
One question sir? Is this for the greater good, or for the good of the whole? :)
#6 Sounds awesome. I can't find a f'ing job. Showing up to clean out my desk will be the most fun I've had all week.
Hey I just got the email and posted it here for you - yes Cic you specifically! Cuz as we know the world does revolve around you and your awesomeness :)
Well there you go.
I expect Cicero never to work again, as apparently she will be better off than any of you if she doesn't.
Cicero, do try to get up before 18.00 GMT though, so I still have the occasional distraction at work. Because despite living in a country to the left of Obama's views, I still feel the need to work and earn a living. Still, that's the Brit mentality, it's only lazy Americans who would quit if they thought there was a safety net.
Hmm...You sound like you don't mean that classic. :)
I'm sorry I took any interest in reading your post, however. Nice work. You are headed straight for management, sounds like.
Hmm...You sound like you don't mean that classic. :)
I'm sorry I took any interest in reading your post, however. Nice work. You are headed straight for management, sounds like.
No I was kidding - I really was. :( sorry if I offended
Because despite living in a country to the left of Obama's views, I still feel the need to work and earn a living. Still, that's the Brit mentality, it's only lazy Americans who would quit if they thought there was a safety net.
:jig:
As a legitimate question, what measures are in place in the UK to prevent abuse of the system? We absolutely have a problem with it here. Is it that you have fewer abusers, or you're more willing to accept that there will always be abusers?
There are people that abuse the system. Of course there are, it's human nature.
The difference is more in attitude. It has come up before and it will come up again. Social Security is just that. The majority of people pay into it. The majority of people will only benefit when they need it.
Scroungers, loafers and good-for-nothings will dance to an elaborate tune to get what they want, but most people would prefer to work and only fall back on the system when they need to.
Now don't get me wrong, the right wing in this country resent it too. The Hate Mail has stories at least once a week about someone supposedly living off the fat of the land. To counter that, Channel 4 make documentaries about how miserable it is to be stuck on benefits.
The bottom line is the safety net is accepted in this country. And the general consensus is that we'd rather stop people falling through the cracks even if it means we have to put up with the occasional family of 13 with neither parent working (but at least they're still married!) Most people here don't believe benefits create scroungers (most people here receive at least something you don't get in America).
ETA I'm sure you know my comment about lazy Americans was in the spirit of the original post. But just to clarify.
Oh yes, I thought the lazy Americans comment was quite funny. :) I wish there were a good way to quantify abusers of the system, to discover if you have a different number than we do. It's interesting that your stereotypical image of the abuser is "the occasional family of 13 with neither parent working (but at least they're still married!)" Ours would be more like the woman with 5 kids, all by different fathers, and neither she nor any of the fathers are working.
I meant the cases reported by the Mail.
Although if you want real vitriol it's always aimed at asylum seekers, who get to stay in hotels free of charge. Yeah, I'd like to see a journalist exist a week in one of those places.
Well there you go.
I expect Cicero never to work again, as apparently she will be better off than any of you if she doesn't.
Cicero, do try to get up before 18.00 GMT though, so I still have the occasional distraction at work. Because despite living in a country to the left of Obama's views, I still feel the need to work and earn a living. Still, that's the Brit mentality, it's only lazy Americans who would quit if they thought there was a safety net.
lol! Yes, I plan to sit on my lazy American ass forever. Hell, maybe I'll have a kid to get some welfare money. Because that's what people know me for. Doing absolutely nothing. No motivation whatsoever, I'm not one of those practical, pull myself up by my bootstraps people. I just sit on my lazy ass and wait for the government to figure it out for me. I don't know when the last time it was that I actually broke a sweat doing work. Hell maybe I'll get a job and injure myself at work and get to quit, with some cash in my pockets. Typical lazy American over here! Now accepting handouts! :D Maybe I'll come up with a mental illness to get some benefits. I feel schizophrenic just now, because I must be out of my mind if I think I just read that right.:D heh.
There are people that abuse the system. Of course there are, it's human nature.
The difference is more in attitude. It has come up before and it will come up again. Social Security is just that. The majority of people pay into it. The majority of people will only benefit when they need it.
Scroungers, loafers and good-for-nothings will dance to an elaborate tune to get what they want, but most people would prefer to work and only fall back on the system when they need to.
The bottom line is the safety net is accepted in this country. And the general consensus is that we'd rather stop people falling through the cracks ~snip~
All of the above applies to the vast majority of Americans too. Our problem is that we are so much larger than you and the amount of abuse and $$$$$$ are as well. numbers wise, I don't know about percentages. For that you need a bean counter.
The problem is though, that by attempting to stamp out the abuse you end up actually spending more than if you just left it untackled. We spend far more on chasing/finding and prosecuting benefits fraud than we ever save in doing so.
Mostly the 'abuse' of the system isn't people living the high life and desperately avoiding work. It's more often someone who is unable to take on a full-time/permanent job claiming benefits, with a few hours a week of undeclared work (maybe £30 or so doing a cleaning job, or a few hours a week on a marketstall) often just for a few weeks at a time.
One of the problems with benefits is that if you take on a job that doesn't work out, you've lost all your benefits (including help with rent etc) and are back at the start of the process, making fresh claims that can take weeks or months. IF you've been fired from the job, or walked out (for example if your boss makes your life hell) you can't claim benefits straight away. You can get 'hardship' payments but the whole while (several months) you are building up a backlog of unpaid rent.
For many people living at the margins of the economy, their experience of emplyment is often negative: employers who treat them with little respect, fights with overbearing supervisers etc, messed about on ovetime or shifts. I know of one employer in my town who only employs on temporary contracts and whose workers regularly get to the factory to start work and are told to go home again and try tomorrow.
I believe there should be a grace period with a new job. The people who struggle most in this area, the ones who are most profoundly stuck on benefits, are often also the people most vulnerable to bad employment practice and bullying in the workplace. I can understand why they don't want to make the leap off benefits into a workplace that might chew them up and spit them out, and then leave them high and dry with no benefits.
That's why I had to depend on Steve for 3 months when I moved down here.
If I hadn't had a friend as a "landlord" I woul dhave been climbing the walls. Three months without rent. It's a very long time when you're worrying.
*nods* Oh I know it.
When I was 20 I worked in a clothes shop. The week before I turned 21 (as predicted by myself and another girl) he 'let me go' because as he put it, there wasn't enough work to justify three regular assistants. I was the senior one, I was keyholder and opened up in the morning, but, at 21 I gained certain emloyment rights that I hadn't had before.
On my 21st birthday I received notification from the benefits agency that as I had been 'fired for misconduct' I was not entitled to unemployment benefits or rent assistance.
The power of the employer in that circumstance is incredible. His power extends beyond your employment with him.
I was fortunate enough to have a partner who intervened. He 'explained' to Vash why he should revise his statement to the job centre. Even so, it took a little over 8 weeks for the personal benefit to come through and about 13 weeks for the rent.
I was the senior one, I was keyholder and opened up in the morning, but, at 21 I gained certain emloyment rights that I hadn't had before.
Weeeelll... that's the flip side of giving people all these guarantees and extensive rights and whatnot--people will go out of their way to avoid honoring them. We don't give 21-year-olds (or anyone) special employment rights here (I assume you're talking about required vacation time, or something along those lines?), and one consequence is no one has ever been fired for turning 21.
I read a very detailed article awhile back about how finding employment as a woman in the UK was actually much, much harder than in the US, because of the extensive maternity benefits employers are required to provide. It talked about how it was common practice to remove your wedding ring for an interview, and that while it was technically illegal, many employers required agreements from new female employees that they were not going to get pregnant. That would never happen here, because maternity benefits are much more moderate, and employers don't take a huge hit from providing them. There are drawbacks to every system.
lol! Yes, I plan to sit on my lazy American ass forever. Hell, maybe I'll have a kid to get some welfare money. Because that's what people know me for. Doing absolutely nothing. No motivation whatsoever, I'm not one of those practical, pull myself up by my bootstraps people. I just sit on my lazy ass and wait for the government to figure it out for me. I don't know when the last time it was that I actually broke a sweat doing work. Hell maybe I'll get a job and injure myself at work and get to quit, with some cash in my pockets. Typical lazy American over here! Now accepting handouts! :D Maybe I'll come up with a mental illness to get some benefits. I feel schizophrenic just now, because I must be out of my mind if I think I just read that right.:D heh.
You are SO fired! ;)
Heh. Thanx. It took you long enough...sign here please....;)
So in the UK they forced an added expense upon an employer and it created LESS opportunity. Hmmm, very interesting.
Well, the rules have changed somewhat since i was 21 :P
At the time, if you were under 21, you basically had no employment rights. At 21, you became covered by adult employment rights. A lot of those rights were eroded under the Thatcher government, and then reinstated by Labour, things like a minimum wage and minimum holiday rights. Nowadays, if you are under 21, you do have certain employment rights. For example there is a mimimum wage for over 21, a minmum wage for 18-21 years and a mimimum wage for 16-18 year olds.
Currently there is a campaign to take away the age grading on wages. If you do a job, you should get paid for that job the same if you are male, as female, the same if you are old as young, the same if you are black as white.
The problem wasn't that I acquired rights at 21. The problem was that I had no rights prior to that. The answer isn't to remove rights from adult workers, it's to instate them for younger workers. That way employers have no legal loophole for paying people shit wages or not allowing holidays.
one consequence is no one has ever been fired for turning 21.
No. We just make them part-time employees so they don't get the normal benefits. Wally World is famous for this.
Unscrupulous employers will often find ways of circumventing systems put in place to protect the workforce.
Obama Accepting Untraceable Donations
Sen. Barack Obama's presidential campaign is allowing donors to use largely untraceable prepaid credit cards that could potentially be used to evade limits on how much an individual is legally allowed to give or to mask a contributor's identity, campaign officials confirmed.
~ the campaign has also chosen not to use basic security measures to prevent potentially illegal or anonymous contributions from flowing into its accounts, aides acknowledged. Instead, the campaign is scrutinizing its books for improper donations the money has been deposited.
The Obama organization said its extensive review has ensured that the campaign has refunded any improper contributions, and noted that Federal Election Commission rules do not require front-end screening of donations.
In recent weeks, questionable contributions have created headaches for Obama's accounting team as it has tried to explain why campaign finance filings have included itemized donations from individuals using fake names, such as Es Esh or Doodad Pro. Those revelations prompted conservative bloggers to further test Obama's finance vetting by giving money using the kind of prepaid cards that can be bought at a drugstore and cannot be traced to a donor.
The Obama campaign has shattered presidential fundraising records, in part by capitalizing on the ease of online giving. Of the $150 million the senator from Illinois raised in September, nearly $100 million came in over the Internet.
Lawyers for the Obama operation said yesterday that their "extensive back-end review" has carefully scrubbed contributions to prevent illegal money from entering the operation's war chest. "I'm pretty sure if I took my error rate and matched it against any other campaign or comparable nonprofit, you'd find we're doing very well," said Robert Bauer, a lawyer for the campaign. "I have not seen the McCain compliance staff ascending to heaven on a cloud."
The Obama team's disclosures came in response to questions from The Washington Post about the case of Mary T. Biskup, a retired insurance manager from Manchester, Mo., who turned up on Obama's FEC reports as having donated $174,800 to the campaign. Contributors are limited to giving $2,300 for the general election.
Wow 100 million over the internet. Thats a hell of a lot of money.
I don't think her daughter being pregnant means she's a bad mother...
Girls get pregnant.
This may be a suprise to you, but... it happens from having sex! I'm sure most of you here have done that before.
I got pregnant, I could have used a mother around.
A lot.
Instead I had a father who hit me and thought date rape was a right earned by guys with dates stupid enough to drink. Hah.
I think the fact Palin's advertising herself as a family person and won't put her campaign on hold when her daughter could probably use a mother in her life more than ever makes me question how devoted a mother she is... and if that's her selling point to the average american idiot, she's got some worries to worry about.
I've said before, and I still feel that I admire the Palin family for sticking to their morals. They are different than mine, but I admire a consistent message.
Of course the difference is that I don't believe I have the right to insist they follow my system of beliefs. I sincerely believe that following a path of abstinance through your teens is more likely to result in pregnancy than using contraceptives. Because I believe that teens are pretty likely to have sex. You can't have it both ways. You can't rail against the wickedness of sex education and readily available birth control and say this is what pushes teens into sexual activity, and then when a well-raised child gets pregnant call other people hypocrites because - gasp - they've had sex too.
I honestly think if America could throw away the bible, they'd be far better off. But of course I am biased on that point :)
Heehee, I heard a new one last night, someone called Palin "Bible Spice."
I agree that her daughter being pregnant has no relevance to any of this, except for perhaps as SG pointed out you can't deny birth control to teenagers and believe that to make bc readily available is the same as saying "go, be free, have sex!"
Palin is a strong woman, and has strong convictions. I admire that. However, her morals are not mine, and I don't want them imposed on me. That does not make me evil.
As they say "Keep your laws off my body."
I honestly think if America could throw away the bible, they'd be far better off. But of course I am biased on that point :)
I'm sorry, but if I recall correctly America is a country founded upon faith.
The Declaration of Independence:
"hen in the Course of human events it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation."
The Pledge of Allegiance:
"I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America, and to the Republic for which it stands: one Nation under God, indivisible, With Liberty and Justice for all."
last paragraph of The Star Spangled Banner:
"Oh! thus be it ever, when freemen shall stand
Between their loved home and the war's desolation!
Blest with victory and peace, may the heav'n rescued land
Praise the Power that hath made and preserved us a nation.
Then conquer we must, when our cause it is just,
And this be our motto: "In God is our trust."
And the star-spangled banner in triumph shall wave
O'er the land of the free and the home of the brave!"
Whose God is this country based on now, Classic? Your God?
Whose God is this country based on now, Classic? Your God?
America was founded upon God - that is all I said.
Neither the Pledge of Allegiance nor the Star Spangled Banner are documents that have any relation to the founding of this county. The SSB was written during the war of 1812, a generation and a half after the country was founded. The Pledge was altered in the 1950's IIRC to include the God part.
The Declaration is an important document directly involved in the founding, and it refers to a creator, but only when talking about the rights men have, not that the government is subservient to God's will.
None of this discussion counters Sundae's point. She's saying that there is a lot of religious influence in America and that it's bad. You actually support what she is saying by providing examples the religion in America.
America was founded upon God - that is all I said.
OK, whose God then, then?
This talk of a God founding a country is really, really silly.
Glatt, This country was founded upon a belief in God. I specifically used the other examples to show that it has continued over time. Just stated facts.
Yes the Pledge was altered to include God. Thanks for pointing that out. At no point did I state whether it was good, bad or indifferent. I am well aware that my opinions are contrary to the vast majority of the people who post here regularly and thats fine. That is another reason why I specifically didn't post them.
Pico - The greatest country on earth WAS founded upon a belief in God. Like it or not, want it or not, think it silly if you like, but it was and that will always be a simple fact.
Whether a God or religion is a will continue to play a role in shaping the direction of America is a totally different subject.
Founded on freedom of religion.
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.
"As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion; as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion, or tranquillity, of Musselmen; and as the said States never have entered into any war or act of hostility against any Mehomitan nation, it is declared by the parties that no pretext arising from religious opinions shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries."
1796 Treaty of Tripoli, unanimously accepted by the Senate
This country was founded upon a belief in God.
This country was not founded on a belief in God. It was founded on a belief in Freedom from England. "No taxation without representation." There is no God in that sentiment. If you re-read that Declaration of Independence, it gives the list of all the reasons that this country was founded. It goes into quite some detail. It's mostly trade issues and taxes and stuff like that.
Perhaps you are thinking of the founding of some of the former colonies? They were founded on religion. But this country was not.
Pico - The greatest country on earth WAS founded upon a belief in God. Like it or not, want it or not, think it silly if you like, but it was and that will always be a simple fact.
According to you, maybe, but you are wrong.
Ok, I am wrong. as you were.
I 100% agree with Undertoad. Be sure to check out his site @
http://www.borndigital.com/founders.htmThis country was founded upon a belief in Santa Claus. It's a simple fact.
I thought it was a Wizard?
Palin is a strong woman, and has strong convictions. I admire that. However, her morals are not mine, and I don't want them imposed on me. That does not make me evil.
As they say "Keep your laws off my body."
How could she do that as VP or President even?
Appointments to the Supreme Court (as President, obviouly as VP she would only be more of a general influence on policy.)
The quote was more of a general statement of the fact that I've experienced that a lot of people of "high moral fiber" think they should legislate so that others can benefit from the gloriousness of high moral fiber.
I think if she could wield such powers, she absolutely would, which is one of the reasons she's not for me. I'm a live and let live kind of person. For instance, I don't expect everyone to behave as I do: with class, dignity, and forgiveness. (I'm totally kidding there, yes.) :)
I wasn't implying that she could, though, just that she would if she could...live and let live is not the mantra I usually hear from the moral fiber-ites. ;)
I understand. But I just got to listen, due to my laziness to get up and change the channel away from the news, first McCain (live in some northern border state) and Obama (live in Fl) spew forth more promises than I have heard in the last month. They both promised everything. All vets, workers in shelters, and peace corps workers will get a free college education. WTF? Where, how, who is paying for that? HE CAN"T DO IT!!!! only Congress can.
Palin can't make law, if she stays VP, which she most likely would, she would enter and leave the stage as nothing more than a lady in waiting. Given the current make up of the Senate, she would most likely never even vote on a tie breaker. NONE of these people can change or effect or even vote on a change to the Constitution. The worst thing that could happen is McCain (Small type: Palin) might get to make another appointment to the SC. So what? You think Congress is going to let them overturn Roe v. Wade? This is all gobbly goop from them and their handlers and detractors to the masses who do not know how government works. Do any of you believe that special interest groups and corps and big business is suddenly going to lose interest in Washington and the Congress and just go away overnight in either a Obama or McCain presidency? Hell no, the only things that will change are the names, the process will continue.
Palin can't make law, if she stays VP, which she most likely would, she would enter and leave the stage as nothing more than a lady in waiting.
Oh. All that wire tapping, torture, international kidmapping, Saddam's WMDs, and even (rumored) orders to shoot down airliners during 11 September, and "Reagan proved that deficits don't matter" ... VP Cheney did none of that. The VP has no power?
I thought it was a Wizard?
Actually, I believe that it was the flying spaghetti monster.
It was the man behind the curtain.
oh - I thought he was from Oz - get it...Wizard of Oz.
:) yes, that was the intent. :)
Whew - I just reread that. Hello??? I'm ok - I got it now.