gadgetlady

Her interview tonight will be interesting. You do know she's having an interview tonight, right? And she has spoken without a teleprompter. She also runs the state of Alaska without a teleprompter. Just FYI, all of the speeches delivered at both conventions used teleprompters. It appears to only have become an issue that she used one.

Wow. "If parents had been teaching kids about not having sex . . ." Sounds to me like you're in favor of abstinence education. Which is exactly what this bill is NOT.

BUT THAT'S NOT WHAT THE BILL CALLED FOR! Read the bill and the language therein! It is NOT the government's job to teach my 5YO about STDs.

Ever heard of hyperbole? If you haven't gotten the point I was making about context by now, I think there's little hope. I wasn't claiming Obama is a Muslim. I don't think he is. But it is, quite frankly, hilarious to me that his supporters take umbrage at his name. If you'd like to have a discussion about what you meant above by "your level of thinking", I'm all for it.

If you want to teach your 5YO about sexually transmitted diseases, that's your prerogative. But don't mandate, by law, that should I choose to avail myself of the public school system (which, incidentally I don't, partly for this very reason), it will be mandatory that they are taught such things. It's a parental decision, not a state-imposed decision (or at least it shouldn't be).

I think you're missing my point entirely. My point was about context. Yes, other politicians have used the lipstick on a pig line in the past, and yes, even McCain has. But in the context of what is going on right now in politics, it is a slam against Palin, and both he and his audience clearly knew it. In the context of a conservative speaking about Ted Kennedy, a statement that "We'll cross that bridge when we come to it" means more than the usual understanding of the phrase (you do know about Chappaquiddick, don't you?). In the context of a post 9/11 USA, Obama's middle name Hussein can be taken to be an attack . . . just as you took it . . . when all I was doing was "innocently" writing his full name. I did it on purpose. To make a point. Do you get it?

Kids IN KINDERGARTEN need to learn how to READ, not how to have protected sex. Don't get me wrong. I am not against education AT ALL. But I don't believe what that bill provided for, comprehensive sex ed in kindergarten which "shall include instruction on the prevention of sexually transmitted infections, including the prevention, transmission and spread of HIV" is age appropriate for 5 and 6 year olds.

Look it up. The quote I gave is direct verbiage from the bill and no, I didn't get it from Bill O'Reilly or Rush Limbaugh. In gauging a candidate, we have to look at his voting record and see what he supports and what he opposes. Obama supported this bill, with the verbiage about teaching contraception and sexually transmitted disease prevention. I'm sorry that you don't like it or don't think it's accurate or don't think anyone should be looking at his record, but facts are facts. This is just one of the many issues on which I disagree with Barack Hussein Obama. And it is a real issue, because what we teach our children will shape our future. It speaks to his worldview.

No, actually, I don't. Why would saying someone's middle name be a problem? (are you getting an idea of context issues now?)

I disagree. Look, if someone were talking to a group of conservatives about Ted Kennedy and said the common expression, "We'll cross that bridge when we come to it", it takes on a whole different connotation. Barack Hussein Obama knew what he was saying, and his audience reacted to what they knew he was saying, chanting immediately afterwards, "She's a pit bull". Context means everything. As to the issue of sex ed, you're quoting party line, saying he wanted it extended to kindergarten to protect from pedophiles. The reality is that the bill states exactly what it intended ("Each class or course in comprehensive sex education offered in any of grades K through 12 shall include instruction on the prevention of sexually transmitted infections, including the prevention, transmission and spread of HIV"), and Barack Hussein Obama is trying to backtrack. If he didn't agree with what the bill said, why did he vote for it?

I agree. It was a cute joke, but doesn't warrant repetition. But I also believe that Obama's statement (that you can put lipstick on a pig but it's still a pig) was calculated -- for the reasons I noted above -- but calculated to be generic enough to provide him the option to claim plausible deniability.

On another subject: we discussed on this thread the issue of abstinence and sex education. It was noted today that before Obama was elected to the US Senate, when he was a member of the Illinois legislature, Obama chaired a committe that approved a bill to change the sex ed curriculum (which at the time was grades 6-12) to start at kindergarten instead. Here are the facts: as chair of the Senate Health And Human Services Committee, on March 6th, 2003, Obama voted for SB 99. The measure passed through the committee with a 7-4 vote. Here's what the bill said, verbatim: "Each class or course in comprehensive sex education offered in any of grades K through 12 shall include instruction on the prevention of sexually transmitted infections, including the prevention, transmission and spread of HIV." Thankfully, the bill didn't pass. Of course, now Obama's backtracking and saying the kindergarten curriculum should include "age appropriate" information. But that not what the BILL that he supported said.

You know, there's one other thing. I was watching a news show on either Monday or Tuesday (BEFORE Obama said this) and the panel was 2 men and 2 women. One of the women was a Democrat and the other a Republican, and I think the same was the case with the men. One of the men used that EXACT expression (lipstick on a pig) and you could visibly see the women's backs stiffen (both Dem and Rep). They IMMEDIATELY jumped down his throat (as did the other man AND the host of the show) about the remark, CLEARLY believing it was in reference to Palin. When I heard Obama said it, I truly believed he or someone on his staff had also watched the show I watched (I still do believe it). I don't think, in light of Palin's MUCH repeated joke from the convention, that anyone can realistically use a joke about lipstick and pigs and not expect people to link it to her.

I think when you pair the expression with the analogy that followed, that you can wrap an old fish in new newspaper and it will still stink (considering Palin's nickname is "Barracuda") -- add to that the fact that the audience began chanting after that statement, "No more pit bull!" over and over, and finally throw in a dose of the fact that it's very unlikely that Obama, with his cultural background (forgive me, but that's more of a white/farmer expression), grew up with that expression being said around his household, to me it all adds up to a deliberate attack. Certainly, his audience picked up on it ("No more pit bull!") and, even if the expression was innocently said by him, at the point when the audience started chanting what they did, he should have said he wasn't referring to her when he said it. Remember, this is a man who called a female reporter "Sweetie" during the campaign trail, and suggested that Hillary was meaner when she had PMS. I think what Obama said was calculated. If you look at the entire clip, he starts off with the phrase he took from that Washington Post cartoonist -- almost WORD FOR WORD (with no credit given the cartoonist) -- and he stumbled a little over it like he was trying to pull it from his memory. Then he went into the lipstick comment, and again he looked like he was trying to pull it up from his memory, word for word. I think he said what he meant and he meant what he said.

I'm glad you've been able to forgive him. My dad grew up with a father who used a belt on the kids, among other incredibly unacceptable things (he tells the story of how my grandfather once chased my uncle with an ax -- I have no idea what he would have done had he caught him). I'm glad my dad was able to get past that and use spanking a bit more properly with my brothers and me, but he still yelled a lot and that was very hurtful. I like to think I've taken it a step further and have tried to be extremely calm when I discipline, never doing it in anger. I remember so very clearly how I would cower when my dad yelled, so I don't want to do that to my kids. My husband and I have a very measured approach to discipline, including making our girls aware of the punishments for different infractions, and having frank, open discussions with them about spanking and other forms of discipline; all disciplinary actions in our family are followed by discussion (sometimes after a period of time if the child's heart needs to soften first).

LOL! OK, I'll keep it toned down (joke-wise, at least). No jokes about lipsticks or pigs or anything :biggrin:

Glad you all liked that joke -- and that you'd never heard it before. That's funny to me, because I've heard it from several different people. Maybe I should tell conservative jokes on here more often . . .:biggrin:

It's sad that your dad misused what can be an effective disciplinary tool. Using a belt on a child isn't acceptable, IMO, nor is not making sure the child knows in advance what the parameters are for which types of discipline, and what infraction caused the spanking to occur. Doing what he did -- spanking without warning and not telling you the reason is the classic example of spanking in anger.

Thanks. I finally got it open. It wouldn't open in FireFox but it opened in IE -- and it was the same as the jibjab one. Thanks for posting it -- it was fun to watch it again. My kids love it, too. :thumbdown:

Did you ever hear the joke about Chelsea Clinton interviewing the troops? Chelsea asks, "What are three things you're afraid of?" The soldier replies, "Osama, Obama, and your mama."

I do love equal party offenders. You have to be able to laugh at yourself!

I couldn't open it, but if it's similar to (or the same as) the jibjab "It's Time for Some Campaignin'" video that was out a while back, it is indeed hilarious. I loved Obama riding on a unicorn singing about change.

Our taxes didn't build this country. Hard work with some great natural resources and personal freedom built this country.

Years ago Maher hid his bias better.

I couldn't listen past 20 seconds. I could tell it was ludicrous.