gadgetlady

I've been following this story for a while. It sounds a bit "off" to me, but I just don't know. I'm not a big conspiracy theorist. There is a second lawsuit being filed (or has been filed) in Washington state, and I've heard about a third potential suit as well. It will be interesting to see how it plays out. It seems to me if Obama just produced the document to the court, the suit would be over. Other than obstinance (or not having the document), I can't understand why he doesn't.

Very good point. If you depend on medical technology to define life, then in the 1950's an unborn baby wasn't alive at 25 weeks, but in 2008 he or she is. That smacks of discrimination right there -- how is the 1950's baby any different from the 2008 baby? Going back to pre-Dred Scott, was a black man in the 1700's really only 3/5 of a human being, where as in 2008 he's a full human being? Or was the definition just wrong? Going back again to another point I raised earlier: scientists are working on an artificial placenta. If/when they are able to sustain life earlier than the current 18-24 months that is considered "viable", when then do we define the beginning of life? And what would that mean for the babies that were killed after that time -- earlier in history? Would it then be the case that those babies were not really "alive" before then, or would it be the case that the definition was just wrong? Is the real goal of abortion to make a woman "unpregnant", or is it to ensure that she has a dead baby?

LOL! Yeah, I used to say, when I was in college and people asked me if I could ever take welfare, "Hell yes! If everyone else gets some of my money, I want some too!"

Losingjusme, I'm not trying to be confrontational; I'm just trying to understand. Two separate questions: 1) why do you think you could never have an abortion?, and 2) if you are not the one to decide if the life is viable or not, as the mother of that life, then who is? And if it's someone other than you who should be making that decision for you, the mother, why is it OK for other mothers to decide to end that life? Please understand that I truly am trying to get to the bottom of the reasoning here; I'm really, really not trying to be confrontational. I've never had anyone actually be able to concisely and logically explain the reasoning to me and I want to understand (but I may also want to ask follow-up questions :eek:). BTW, congratulations on your pregnancy :eek:

{shudders} While every other country is backing away from socialism (or trying to), we're driving full speed headlong into it. I read somewhere recently that you will never get out of the system, economic benefit-wise, what you put into it. The colonists had a Tea Party for a tax rate somewhere under 5%. While I do think that's pretty unrealistic in this day and age, I like to keep that number in mind when discussing tax rates. I tend to hover around somewhere between 25% and 30% being about right. After all, to think about having one quarter or one third of the labor that I do go straight out the door -- if you really think of it in those terms -- for every 2 or 3 hours out of every 8-hour day you work you don't get paid, or for every year you're working 3 to 4 months for Uncle Sam -- that's not very encouraging.

Just in case there were any doubt about the View, [ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZdKL2LW1xYM]YouTube - The Biased View - Obama and McCain Compared[/ame]

Thank you. She is going to be an awesome mother. She was adopted herself so she's really well equipped to handle the situation. She is feeling so humbled and undeserving about all of this, though, so if you are a praying person I'm sure she would appreciate it if you keep everyone involved in prayer over the next two months. Her name is Tiffany.

Plain, you must be anti-American. Truly, you believe that ALL the women on the View are wrong except for one? How is that possible in a democratic system? Surely if someone is out of sync with what everyone else believes, he or she must be wrong. After all, when I watch Chris Matthews and Keith Olbermann on MSNBC, they always agree with each other -- which logically means they're right, right?

No, but Obama supporters expect to be paid by Obama should he win the election, that's for sure. FYI, McCain was my last choice for a Republican candidate -- literally last in the primaries -- but he is head and shoulders above Obama, which is why I'm supporting the ticket.

Are you saying the Libertarian Party isn't properly defining itself? My "true experience" is that I was once registered Libertarian. It has nothing to do with being able to google. I know what Libertarian means. I googled and provided a link for you, not for me, because it appears that you don't understand the definition. I was trying to help.

Like I said . . . I often find humor in statements that go right over people's heads. :eek:

Cute. Never been said before (:eek:) but cute. Yes, I find humor in a lot of things. But I often find humor in statements that go right over people's heads.

I think you mean liberal, not libertarian. There is a Libertarian Party, you know, and they define themselves pretty well. Libertarian Party | Smaller Government | Lower Taxes | More Freedom

Well put. Funny how his half-brother in Africa who makes $12 a year still hasn't received any charity from him (to anyone's knowledge).

:eek: A libertarian, or sometimes known as a Classical Liberal, is someone who believes in individual rights and minimal government interference in personal lives. It is what our Founding Fathers were (for the most part). Here's a link for you in case you want to read up on it: What Is Libertarianism? My husband and I were just discussing this tonight. We have an employee who's such a nice young man. We asked him the other night if he could come over and help us move a heavy desk around (I have a bad back). Not only did he happily come over, but he gave me a hug and thanked my husband for giving him a job. We're not "the rich getting richer"; we're struggling to get along just like everyone else. But with this positive, can-do attitude, I'm confident this young man is going places. The problem with this philosophy is that study after study after study has shown that throwing money at the public school system doesn't make it a better system.

Plain, you just plain make me laugh. Have you seen "An American Carol"? The Rosie caricature in that is hilarious.

luluc, can you provide clarification on your statement that "DH and i are maxed as far as what uncle sam can take from us in taxes. we pay qtrly, and it's an obscene amt." Did you mean you can't afford for Uncle Sam to take more from you, or did you mean you're at the top end of the tax bracket? I was reading it as the former, but based on your subsequent posts, I'm thinking it was the latter?

Love it, plain. Hey -- I wonder if he has to pay taxes on those contributions -- at 50% or 60% because he got so much?

One who has, should give. They shouldn't be forced to or required to give. What you did isn't socialism in any sense of the word; it's charity. If people choose not to give, it's not up to us to require them to do it. In both cases, a transaction takes place; in one, you give. In the other, it is taken from you. What you did is right and commendable, but how would you feel if someone withdrew that money and those resources from you just because they felt you had adequate means to give (whether you felt you did or not is inconsequential -- what matters is their arbitrary definition of your wealth)?

Why can't an "unqualified person" vote, when the polling places are required by law not to ask for identification?

How about just some facts. Obama was rated the most liberal senator in the US Senate (that would be #1 for those of you whose parents weren't rich enough to send you to a private school). Biden was rated #3, just ahead of Vermont Senator Bernie Sanders, who is a self-avowed SOCIALIST (oh -- is that a bad word?). The ratings are from the National Journal and based on actual votes (not opinion) (see NATIONAL JOURNAL: 2007 Vote Ratings (03/07/2008) for more information). I dunno. Someone whose votes make him more liberal than a socialist would be, um, another socialist.

LOL! The spin is already beginning. There's no possible way McCain could win of his accord; if he wins, it will be because of underhanded tactics. Give me a break. Will that also be the case if Obama wins? Voter fraud, et al? Or just if McCain wins. Sheesh!

Here's an interesting article, from CNSNews.com - Obama Sends His Kids to Private School But Opposes School Choice Vouchers As chairman of the Chicago Annenberg Challenge (CAC) from 1995 to 2001, Barack Obama helped distribute $49.2 million to help improve Chicago’s public schools, a task for the CAC that two studies showed had little or no impact on improving public education. Despite his work to improve Chicago’s public schools, the 2008 Democratic presidential nominee sends his two daughters to the University of Chicago’s Laboratory School, a prestigious private school in Chicago – and he opposes school vouchers, which would allow parents to send their kids to the school of their choice. While Republican presidential candidate John McCain supports vouchers, the school choice topic has not been a major issue in the presidential campaign. In July, McCain told the National Council of LaRaza, a Hispanic lobbying group: “The civil rights challenge of our time is education. We need to shake up failed school bureaucracies with competition. ... We need to empower parents with choice.” Obama later blasted McCain’s support for vouchers, saying he was “recycling tired rhetoric.” “We know well-designed public charter schools have a lot to offer, and I’ve actually helped pass legislation to expand them,” Obama told a gathering of the American Federation of Teachers in July. “What I do oppose is using public money for private school vouchers. We need to focus on fixing and improving our public schools, not throwing our hands up and walking away from them.” Tuition for the Chicago Lab School where Obama’s daughters attend is $18,492 a year for grades 1-4, the grades Obama’s daughters attend. The tuition climbs to $20,286 a year for grades 5-8, and $21,480 a year for grades 9-12, according to the school’s Web site. For advocates of school choice, the fact that Obama sends his own children to a private school is relevant to the school choice debate. “That’s not unusual. Loads of people opposed to school choice send their own kids to private school,” said Dick Komer, senior litigation attorney for the Institute for Justice, which supports school vouchers. “Wealthy people like Obama have school choice,” Komer told CNSNews.com. “This is garden variety hypocrisy.” Gaily Purkey, spokeswoman for the Illinois Federation of Teachers (IFT), disagreed that public positions should have a bearing on where an individual sends his or her children to school. “It’s the position of the IFT that people can send their children to any school they choose,” Purkey told CNSNews.com. “But public tax dollars should be put only into public education.” The Chicago Lab School that Obama’s daughters attend was founded in 1896 by education innovator John Dewey. It touts its long history of fostering intellectual curiosity, open-mindedness, critical thinking and a respect for evidence. “We are among the leading independent schools in the nation and pride ourselves on creating conditions for a purposeful search for knowledge and truth,” School Director David W. Magill said in a statement on the Web site for the school.

P.S. When are you due?

FOX News/Rasmussen Reports Poll: McCain Gains Slight Lead in Florida and Ohio - FOXNews.com Elections AP presidential poll: All even in the homestretch This is going to be ONE CLOSE RACE!