gadgetlady

She's welcome to disagree with her. But to say she isn't (and can't be) a feminist because of what she believes in is ludicrous. Feminists don't have the lockhold on one ideology to the exclusion of all others. She's speaking as a liberal, not a feminist, but that's not how she writes it.

". . . but in this case, I'll do it. Because being a Feminist means you have to agree with ME, and if you don't agree with ME you're not worthy of being called a woman, your beliefs aren't worthwhile, and you are worthy of being raged at."

Ah, Plain, I think you'd have to know who DeLarla and PhotoNut were, among others, to "get" this thread in it's fullest. Not worth your time.

ha ha! This was a blast from the past.

I'm a McCain supporter and, sadly, I don't think McCain did very well. I think Obama looked a lot more polished (of course, he's been prepping for a long time!). I still didn't agree with anything Obama said, but to those on his side of the fence, or leaning that way, or uninformed about the issues, or confused as to what socialism is, he made what he said look and sound pretty.

I think what really cracks me up about the whole Palin thing is how Dems clearly want her to step down. If she's truly that awful, then won't her presence on the ticket mean the Dems' candidates will do better? If so, wouldn't they want her to stay on the ticket? In contrast, there's been a lot of talk about Biden withdrawing. I think he's particularly awful for the ticket -- and I want him to stay! His presence makes the Republican job (of winning) easier. So those of you who are Dems and want Palin to withdraw -- what's your real agenda?

Nope. From the article I posted earlier, which is dated 9/26: I know I like a lot of what I’ve heard her say. I also know a lot of what I like about her could be projection. I’m not where my friend Kathleen Parker is — wanting her to step aside to spend more time with her family and Alaska — but that’s not a crazy suggestion. She's right to say that something’s gotta change. My guess — based on nothing but hope for a change — is that Sarah Palin just needs some freedom. In other words, she doesn't agree with Kathleen Parker, saying she should withdraw; she wants her to step up and be released from the people holding her back. She wants her to speak her mind because she agrees with her and believes most Americans will identify with her, too.

So Kathryn Lopez didn't say that, and in fact she disagrees with Kathleen Parker on the issue. I've seen a lot of people saying Biden should withdraw. I certainly hope he doesn't! He's good for the Republican ticket.

Can you provide a link? I'm reading Kathryn Lopez' writings and I'll I'm seeing is praise for Palin. See http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=MjFjZmFmYTZhNjk1MjRkN2E2MmUzYjk0ZDEwY2YzZDM= and http://www.thekansan.com/opinions/x1603412385/LOPEZ-The-rush-is-on-for-Sarah-Palin-GOP. Perhaps you're referring to this article: Free Sarah Palin! by Kathryn Jean Lopez on National Review Online= which is titled "Free Sarah Palin!" -- this refers not to her stepping down, but to her stepping up :bolt:. Conservatives are asking her to speak MORE, not step down from the nomination. On the flip side, it was Joe Biden himself who suggested that Hillary would have been a better veep choice for Obama than he. Hmmmmm.

Can those of you who claimed that conservative columnists are asking her to step aside please cite references or links? I'd be interested to see this.

The whole point about what defines "rich" doesn't matter one iota. Just because one person or group of people arbitrarily defines you as "rich" doesn't mean they then get to take 50% of your income just because they think you're perfectly fine living off the other 50%. In comparison to Obama's half-brother living in Africa who makes $1 a month, we're all rich! Barack Obama's 'lost' brother found in Kenya - Telegraph

I think you and I agree more than you know. I have been a vocal proponent of spanking as a disciplinary method on this thread. I believe it can be very effective when used properly. What I was saying about this particular situation was that, from the sister's reported existing behavior, it was unlikely that she would have spanked in an effective way.

My initial thought on this is it wouldn't have made a difference if your sister had spanked or not. Her whole parenting philosophy appears to have lack of follow through. Spanking in and of itself isn't successful; it's the way in which a child is disciplined as a whole that affects the result.

:biggrin: That's an hilarious assessment of the poll. You are way off base here, but it was good for a laugh.

My understanding of the whole "book banning" brouhaha is that it arose from a parent of a small child who took home a book from the library that the parent found objectionable. The parent asked the mayor, Palin, about the matter, and Palin asked the librarian how she would respond if someone asked her to remove a particular book from the library. She did not ask to have the book removed, and the ridiculous list that's spreading around the internet of books she supposedly wanted banned is transparently ludicrous: it contains books that weren't yet published at the time the incident occurred.

See also TUBOB: Fake Governor Sarah Palin Quotes, which says at the bottom, Disclaimer: She didn't actually say these things - I made them up. But thanks for all the visits. One of the suppposed "quotes" from Palin is: God made dinosaurs 4,000 years ago as ultimately flawed creatures, lizards of Satan really, so when they died and became petroleum products we, made in his perfect image, could use them in our pickup trucks, snow machines and fishing boats. Let me say it again, lest anyone is skimming. THIS IS A FALSE QUOTE, MADE UP BY A LIBERAL BLOGGER, and yet people reference it like it is real.

GREAT article on the "Bridge to Nowhere". If you are truly interested in the answer to this question, I suggest reading this article in full (the reason I say that is because I find people who oppose someone often prefer to complain about something that has a rational, explainable answer, rather than seek the truth): A Tale of Two Bridges by Deroy Murdock on National Review Online

Thanks for these questions, green. I don't have much time as I'm about to board a plane, but I'll try to give you some of the broader points. The President does not have the ability to make law, but he does have the ability to veto laws or not sign them into being. So if the Congress votes a law in and the President disapproves of it, he can veto it (it can be overridden in Congress with a strong majority, however). The benefit, for pro-lifers, of having a President against abortion is that he has the power to appoint Supreme Court justices when there are vacancies. The President generally sets the "tone" and his party generally looks to him for direction on both fiscal and social issues. Hope that helps! I'm sure there are others who can fill in the gaps, and there are numerous websites that can help out. I'm on my way from Dallas to California in about 10 minutes; catch you on the flip side!

OK, I've been hunting around and I finally found it. I have been so sick of people saying that McCain misrepresented Obama's vote on sex ed in kindergarten. I finally found the SIECUS (Sexuality Information and Education Council of the United States) guidelines on what should be taught in a comprehensive K-12 sex ed class. The document is 112 pages long so I will excerpt a few things from Level 1 (early elementary, ages 5-8) only. You can find a link to the .pdf document at PajamaHadin go down a little more than 1/2 way and click on SIECUS. Here it is. "Age-appropriate" sex ed starting in kindergarten (I have culled this down a lot): • Each body part has a correct name and a specific function. • A person’s genitals, reproductive organs, and genes determine whether the person is male or female. • A boy/man has nipples, a penis, a scrotum, and testicles. • A girl/woman has breasts, nipples, a vulva, a clitoris, a vagina, a uterus, and ovaries. • Some sexual or reproductive organs, such as penises and vulvas, are external or on the outside of the body while others, such as ovaries and testicles, are internal or inside the body. • Both boys and girls have body parts that feel good when touched. • Men and women have specific cells in their bodies (sperm cells and egg cells) that enable them to reproduce. • Reproduction requires that a sperm and egg join. • Vaginal intercourse – when a penis is placed inside a vagina – is the most common way for a sperm and egg to join. • Human beings can love people of the same gender and people of another gender. • Some people are heterosexual, which means they can be attracted to and fall in love with someone of another gender. • Some people are homosexual, which means they can be attracted to and fall in love with someone of the same gender. • Homosexual men and women are also known as gay men and lesbians. • Bodies can feel good when touched. • Touching and rubbing one’s own genitals to feel good is called masturbation. • Some boys and girls masturbate and others do not. • Masturbation should be done in a private place. • People often kiss, hug, touch, and engage in other sexual behaviors with one another to show caring and to feel good. • Both girls and boys may discover that their bodies feel good when touched. • Human beings have natural, physical responses to sexual stimulation. • During puberty, boys and girls may become more aware of their responses to sexual stimulation. This is not "age-appropriate" for 5-8 year olds! Furthermore, this is not the bland "we're going to teach them that pedophiles shouldn't be touching their private parts" curriculum that Obama and the liberal media have been claiming the Illinois bill called for. As much as virtually every website you visit will say McCain misrepresented the facts on this one, he did not.

The increased taxation on corporations, who would in turn pass the tax on to the consumers in the form of higher prices, would likely negate any tax cuts he would give. Our problem in the US is not that taxes are too low, but spending is too high (and bureaucracy is, by nature, inefficient). If we increase taxes and increase spending, we will end up right back where we are (but worse). Bush failed to decrease spending to go along with his tax cuts. Both are desperately needed.

Precisely why I declined to run for Congress. Not necessarily all the ex-boyfriends, but just all the crappy and stupid stuff I did when I was younger (all of which I learned from and had since changed my ways, but the revelation of which would surely have had me labeled a hypocrite).

It is true that she did most of the speech without a teleprompter. Which made the liberal reporting after the speech, which focused so much on the theme of "yes, she did a good job reading a great speech that someone else wrote for her off of a teleprompter" (like no other candidate has their speeches written for them and no other candidate uses a teleprompter) so laughable.

I don't see Palin as dramatically different from Romney (there are some differences, yes). What do you find particularly objectionable about Palin?

I apologize if I was being condescending. I do get riled up when people misrepresent facts. I generally find that people who blame Bush for everything under the sun don't understand the workings of US politics. The whole "Bush passed such-and-such law" thing is one example of such.

So, to clarify, are you in favor of the increase in taxes in all areas but the death tax?