gadgetlady

Do you know when this interview was held? Just curious. (It wasn't 2 weeks ago, BTW.)

"Fairness" doesn't mean tax the "rich" more because you or anyone else arbitrarily thinks "they" can afford it. "Fairness" doesn't mean arbitrarily putting someone else's hard-earned money up for grabs just because you or anyone else thinks they have "too much" or "more than they need". Our forefathers had a Tea Party due (in part) to a whopping tax rate of 4%. The participants are officially turning over in their graves. What the government does in the name of "fairness" and "redistribution of wealth" and a bunch of other euphemisms, is, quite simply, theft. They hold a gun to our heads and take, in some cases, up to 40% or more of our money. And Obama wants to raise it. I don't give a damn what his reasons are; it's not the government's money and they're not entitled to it. Socialism doesn't work; never has, never will. The only way we're going to get a handle on our national bills is to decrease spending, not increase taxes. And, unfortunately, both parties have recently had a history of being woefully incapable or unwilling to do that. Ever watch any of the popular shows like, "Are You Smarter Than a Fifth Grader?" or "Don't Forget the Lyrics" or the like? When that "lucky" person wins $100,000, they really don't -- because Uncle Sam always gets his cut, regardless of whether the money is earned, won, or inherited. The take-home is closer to about $55,000 (which is a nice windfall, but still not what they won). And that just plain sucks.

I'm confused. Is there a problem with something I've said, or are you referring to something else? I'm not being snarky or attacking or anything -- I'm just trying to figure out what the problem is. You don't need to answer if you don't want to, but I'm happy to address it if it's a problem you have with me.

Good for you! Nor do I, and I think I just communicated that in my last post (at least I hope I did).

I watched Fox and CSpan. I'm not asking you to convince me so there's no need to say things like "I don't expect you to understand" -- I was just wondering what channel you watched, because I did see people from all walks of life; certainly more than "5 or 10 brown people". That being said, IMO the physical measure of diversity isn't as important as the message being delivered. For example, I have been to churches where 100% of the people are white and I don't agree with the message, and I have been to churches where 100% of the people are black (except me) and I do agree with the message. I don't care about the color or look of the people around me; I care about the intellectual validity of the message being delivered.

The main reason I don't like Obama is because he's a socialist. The answer for the Democrats, when the economy is doing well, is "raise taxes." The answer for the Democrats, when the economy is doing poorly, is "raise taxes." Therefore, I believe their goal is redistribution of wealth, nothing more. They just try to make it sound pretty by telling you it's only going to affect "the other guy." If you think that because you don't make a certain arbitrary threshold of income per year that a tax increase won't affect you, you just aren't aware of the facts. An increased corporate tax will affect what you spend on items you purchase. An increased tax on small and large businesses will affect your paycheck. The list can go on forever. Imagine if every time you went to a restaurant and bought food, someone came over to you and took somewhere between 25% and 40% right off your plate before you had a chance to eat it. Or if every time you went to the store and bought clothes, someone picked through your bag and took 25-40% of what you bought. I firmly believe payroll tax withholding is the biggest coup of the government. If taxes weren't taken out of our paychecks but instead everyone had to pay their taxes by writing a check every week, month, or year, the sentiment about taxes would be dramatically different in this country. Instead, we have this stupid mentality around April of every year that, "Woo hoo! I'm getting a refund check!" -- like someone is giving you a gift -- when it was your money to start out with! There are many, many other reasons I don't support Obama. None of them has to do with his cultural background or his name.

What station were you watching? Because I saw a lot of people of both genders, varied ages, ethnic and cultural groups (I don't like the word race because I believe we are all one race -- human), sizes, shapes, etc. Remember, what you see in the convention is what the person controlling the camera and editing chooses to show you. That's why I ask -- what network was it?

I've been reading some of the smear tactics of Palin (this particular one is echoed on Obama's website). Good reading: Michelle Malkin Interestingly, several of the books they claim Palin tried to ban from her local library weren't even published at the time the supposed incident happened.

Here's a current list of Palin rumors (most of them false): Palin Rumors | Explorations

I agree on both points. Did you call them today or had you done this sometime in the past? Not that it matters, but I'm just curious. There's a law in California that provides for "comprehensive sex education" starting at kindergarten -- yes, kindergarten -- and does not require parental permission or notification. I think your jaw would hit the floor if you were a fly on the wall at a public school during a sex ed class. Check out Planned Parenthood, Take Care Down There (don't have kids in the room) for a little peek at what's being preached. :lovechoc: Well said. That's why hit-and-run comments like, "She's for abstinence-only education and her 17YO is pregnant; see, abstinence doesn't work!" are so annoying. They're designed to mislead, to confuse, and to denigrate, and then they're parroted by people who buy into them without really looking about the surrounding issues or realizing that the arguments aren't consistent or applicable. (I feel the same way about the whole "Obama la Biden" "Osama bin Laden" discussion, BTW)

Here's an interesting article: Top 7 Myths, Lies and Untruths About Sarah Palin - America’s Election HQ. Please note: the photo on it is photoshopped, but has been circulating the internet as if it were an actual photo of her.

The exact statement she made was, "The explicit sex-ed programs will not find my support." So the internet/media claims are skewed. As to whether her daughter received sex-ed in her school, including contraception information, I have not been able to confirm that. However, I believe there it is extremely unlikely that she did not. Furthermore, anyone who believes, in this day and age, that kids don't know how babies are made (and how to prevent it) is smoking something.

Perhaps someone from Alaska can weigh in on this, but it is my understanding that Alaska does NOT teach abstinence-only education, but rather currently has sex-ed (as do other states). What Palin said in an interview was that she did not support explicit sex ed. We do not know if her daughter received sex ed in school (although my guess is that she did because it has been taught in the schools there) and we also don't know if she was using birth control and it failed (not that it's our business). I'm so sick of this argument, "See, Palin's daughter is pregnant, therefore we need more sex ed." It's ludicrous and misdirected, especially since she likely received precisely the sex ed that everyone's saying prevents pregnancy. I would challenge any of you to contact your local school and ask to sit in on a sex ed class. I think you'd be shocked out of your gourd.

I don't know for sure because we homeschool our kids (and teach them sex ed beginning at about age 7), but I do believe they start very young now, in elementary school. And the presentations are extremely graphic.

Just finished listening to Palin's speech. That was a brilliant home run! WOW!

It's not just a party thing for me, either. I am not loyal to the Republican ticket per se (I used to be registered Libertarian but left because the party isn't pro-life), and I don't always vote for Republicans. The reason I say I would never vote Democrat is because I can't think of one single thing in their platform that I agree with. I wouldn't even vote for someone like Lieberman because of his pro-abortion stand. Pretty much if someone were a Democrat and conservative enough for me, he'd likely be on the road to switching his party affiliation (like Zell Miller).

You are correct that I would never vote Democrat, and I know there are many who would never vote Republican. But, generally speaking, elections are decided by the 10% that do flip-flop back and forth between parties. Roughly 45% can always be trusted to vote Democrat. Roughly 45% can always be trusted to vote Republican. Elections are won and lost over the remaining 10%. Surprising as it may be to you and me, who are entrenched in our ideologies for solid reasons, there actually are people who change their minds. For heaven's sake, look at Lieberman! He wasn't just an average Democrat -- he ran on the Democrat ticket! I don't get it and I won't ever get it, but it's a political reality.

Wow. Astounding.

I read a poll yesterday -- don't remember which one it was but it may have been Zogby -- and was surprised that 22% of Hillary supporters have turned into McCain/Palin supporters. I just don't get it. I really, really don't. There is nothing I can imagine that would every sway me to the Democrat ticket -- for purely ideological reasons. Someone told me today that they heard a rumor Geraldine Ferraro is going to vote for McCain because of Palin. I have looked online but haven't been able to verify the info. Again, I don't get it. How gender affects political ideology and the ability to be successful in office is beyond me.

Nice. I don't know if I posted this earlier here, but I watched an interview from months ago with Palin. When asked how she could handle her pregnancy and the governorship, she said, "I believe a woman can work, think, and carry a baby all at the same time." Sarah Palin: Proof Positive that a woman doesn't have to kill her unborn children, even the disabled ones, to be successful.

LOL! I have an opinion about a myriad of issues. That's just the direction the discussion was going, so I commented on it. I would still like to know what those NV ratios are for the various senators. I wish there were an easy way to find out. I think this whole discussion arose out of the question of whether Palin or Obama was more experienced (not that we should be comparing top-of-ticket to bottom-of-ticket, but, surprisingly, we are). I'm all for dialogue, but if we aren't willing or able able to back up our opinions, IMO it's not responsible behavior. Therefore, I try to follow up on issues that I raise or respond to, or to questions that are asked of me. Some people get down on me and say I never let an issue go, but I view it as just being thorough.

I completely agree with you. I'm astounded that liberals' arguments are basically sounding like they believe she should be a SAHM. Palin is a member of Feminists for Life. I think she's going to be able to handle all of this in stride.

I've heard this was pretty much a red herring. I didn't pay much attention to the rumor so I didn't pay much attention to the response to the rumor, but I'm sure if there were a constitutional issue I'm sure it would have come much further than a rumor at this point.

Good question. It really pisses me off when people judge others because of unintended pregnancies. Because really, that's just a visual consequence of a behavior (pre-marital sex, whether protected or unprotected -- face it, birth control does fail!) that a lot of people don't seem to have a problem with. Who knows whether, for example, Chelsea Clinton has ever been pregnant? Well, the public sure doesn't, simply because if she has, she could have aborted the baby. So in reality, what Palin's daughter is being judged for is . . . having sex? Furthermore, the mother of the baby always gets the brunt of the judgment, while the father is left relatively unscathed in the public eye.

I've been trying to find a tally of Obama's NV's in comparison to the "average" senator's (other than the obvious option of tallying up a few of them myself, which I haven't had the time/energy to do just yet). It is my understanding that Obama is singularly known for his lack of votes in both the Illinois Senate and the US Senate, but I would like to run the numbers (or find someone who has) to see for myself if this claim is skewed or not. I've read it in so many places that I tend to think it isn't skewed, but I haven't seen actual hard numbers to evaluate the claim.