This isn't political but just a comment about what I observed during the Palin speech. As Dr. Phil has said numerous times "the #1 most influential person in a child's life is the same sex parent." I watched as Mr. Palin handed the newest member of their family over to their youngest daughter. She took this child so gently and I watched as the camera panned to her as she was wetting her palm and slicking down the baby's hair. I chuckled
at this but it also touched my heart. Another time she was gently wiping the baby's eyes. Obviously there is a lot of love in this family and it was certainly reflected in this little girl's face and in her actions. I have made no decision about the election but will certainly be watching the debates so I can make a knowledgeable decision.

Originally Posted by benj

Peachie
You filled my day with laughter and light...raising the bar what a joke.. the dems cant go much lower even if they try. I just cant believe that open minded women will go for this stuff without taking offense. Don't kid yourself this kind of hate is being aimed right at you.
Can you imagine what they would say if someone said Obamas kids were really fathered by Bill Cosby, Or that one of his daughters was not his, OMG they would go nuts , BUT it's ok if said about Sarah Palin. I think it shows how afraid they are about her.
This reminds me of the blind faith put on Clinton, no matter what his faults. My friend says if they caught Bill Clinton " doing " his dog (4 legged) in the oval office , they would of said Look he's an animal lover.
My point is that the dems are rallying around people who are course and as low as they can go and they seem to be proud of their views. Benj

Oh brother. And this from someone who has falsely accused Obama of being a Muslim, and saying that if he's elected President we won't be able to sing God Bless America. What a double standard.

OK, don't jump on me, and I don't think it was Sarah Palin's fault by any means, but I think her speech came off shrill and negative. I think the Republicans did her a disservice with that speech. When she spoke about herself, she seemed much warmer, but when she attacked, nostrils flaring, it just doesn't sit well. I would have liked to hear more about her and her resume to perhaps step in as President. Usually the VP is the pitbull, but in this case, I think they should have left it to John McCain. I think they would have had a much more winning ticket. Making her come off as so aggressive just opens the door wider and gives Joe Biden more leeway to attack back. The Republicans really should have been smarter about this.

Also, for a party that pride's itself on "family values" I think the buttons that read "The hottest VP were completely sexist. Sorry, I can't see it any other way.

I don't like her politics. Also, her daughter does become fair game when you realize that Sarah Palin is Pro-abstinence , against Sex Education and against abortion, even in times of rape or incest. I have a daughter and I wouldn't want this woman making laws that would affect MY daughter's life. She is against everything Hillary has fought for her entire career, so I know they will not get the Hillary voters.

I still think this choice was impulsive and rash and tells me a lot about John McCain.

The only person in the mainstream media that has weighed in Palin's ability to be a mother and a Veep at the same time is Dr. Laura. She's against it and for sure she is not a liberal.

Even the ladies on The View refused to comment when Elizabeth Hasselback went off.

If this was a liberals child Rush Limbaugh would be all over it...and everyone on this board knows that in their heart of hearts.

Teenage pregnancy is NOT a good thing...this child is looking at a long road ahead. The father, on his My Space page, said he didn't want kids. Now he is front and center most likely with a deer in the headlights look.

Instead of talking about this we should be looking at Sarah Palin's record....

If you want to talk about that I am surely ready for that.

Originally Posted by chelsea24

...

I don't like her politics. Also, her daughter does become fair game when you realize that Sarah Palin is Pro-abstinence , against Sex Education and against abortion, even in times of rape or incest. I have a daughter and I wouldn't want this woman making laws that would affect MY daughter's life. She is against everything Hillary has fought for her entire career, so I know they will not get the Hillary voters.

...

This is a funny country where the 17-year-old daughter of a candidate is "fair game," but at the same time the children of illegal aliens are considered "innocent victims" of their parent's actions and these kids are to be treated with dignity and open-heartedness. I guess I just don't see where there should be "hunting seasons" on those who do not have to justify anything to anyone other than their parents and their Maker. Anything else IS being vicious just for the sake of wanting to lash out at another but not being able to do so.

As the father of daughters, I don't buy into the "Hillary way" as being the true path and shining light. The fact that a parent is pro-abstinence and the offspring (male or female) strays from the teaching is no surprise or reason to condemn a belief. Kids make mistakes - that's what they do best! I readily admit to being a sinner and not following all of my parent's teachings - in moments of weakness as well as rebellion. That's what offspring tend to do. And whenever that happens, there is usually a price to pay - by the offspring. Anything less condones worse behavior.

For a daughter who finds herself straying from her teachings and now pregnant, it speaks volumes to her character and that of her family to not punish the true innocent - the unborn child - for the transgression. It is especially poignant when the "penance" for the transgression is to carry the child full-term and accept responsibility for the caring and nurturing of the new life, rather than looking at the new life as a cancer, wart or other malignancy. To me, it beats taking the position of sex-for-sex's sake and I'm too important to be inconvenienced by something as trivial as a new life. While people make mistakes, it is refreshing when people take responsibility for the action by not compounding the mistake further due to inconvenience.

This society has become so preoccupied with sex - having it at will, making it a sport, and I'm never responsible for anything. Television has become the cesspool Mr. Minnow feared; movies abound with open sexual acts and gutter-talk (and they call it "art!"); and the kids think t must be right because the so-called adults condone it - and make money off it by the ton.

Sex education in the schools - done because many parents don't seem to want to fulfill parental responsibilities - has done nothing to thwart a rising teen birth rate. If anything, it may be part of the rising problem of kids having kids at younger and younger ages, resulting in more cries for having kids get abortions (sometimes again and again) because adults won't tell kids "no" anymore. Just go by any public junior high school and watch how seventh graders interact - the dress, makeup, competition, need for boy/girlfriends and "steady's," and the other social stresses formerly reserved for 11th and 12th grade. Middle school "proms" and younger-and-younger beauty pageants....where will it end?

No, the I don't have to be responsible for my actions (male or female) and if it feels good, do it and a child now would be so expensive and inconvenient to my career is not a globally-accepted philosophy.

The Dr. Spock stuff hasn't worked, and the free love society has resulted in the most selfish and narcissic generations since the days of Caligula. Personally, I have no problem with people like the so-called old-style conservatives. They at least accept responsibility for their sins, and responsibility has so become a word that "the enlightened" seem to want to remove from Webster's dictionary.

Dancer

I would like you to tell me where I said Obama was a muslim and that if he is elected we wont be able to sing God Bless America. I would hate to call you a liar in front of anyone so I'll give you a chance to apologies , Or show me where I said that. Benj

OK, by the time you read this all the conventions will be over, the impassioned speeches with the zingers directed at the opponent over, the hoarse-throated delegates will all be on their way home...and we'll all be left to consider our voting decision. Oh, there will be extensive negative advertising on both sides because both candidate's handlers seem to think that's an effective way to campaign. Maybe we can find it in our minds to ignore all that crapola.

Earlier I commented that our choice seems to be...another four years like the last eight...or, the possibility of some long-needed action on pressing problems facing our nation.

I still think that's our choice, and it has nothing at all to do with the personalities of the candidates or their chosen VP's, their families, those that they count as their "base", how much money they can raise, the results of the debates...none of that stuff.

If John McCain wins the presidency, there's little chance that anything that he said he will do while campaigning will actually get done. It won't be because he doesn't want to change some things or that he won't try. He'll have to rely on a heavily Democratic Congress and a Republican minority where many members dislike him. He has been a maverick over the years and has not followed the GOP party line. The result is he doesn't have much political capital on either side of the aisle. I believe his presidency would be marked by four more years of polarized and bitter inaction.

Tick off the things he says he will do and ask yourself whether there's even a remote chance that a Democratic Congress with a Republican minority which has much imbedded enmity against him will cooperate. In fact, I think there's a real chance that the Democrats will wind up with a sufficiently large majority in both houses that they will simply go ahead with their list of platform plans, regardless of what a President McCain might ask them to do. Then we could find ourselves in a pass-veto-pass stalemate and bitter feelings all around and total frustration within the electorate.

A President Obama would have the political capital to get just about anything done that he wants. Oh, that would be unless there's an even further intra-party fracture between the far left and centrists among the Democrats. But at least his election would result in the possibility that sorely-needed legislation might be passed to address longstanding problems in our country. The risk we would run with Obama is that the Congress would pass some dumb or even damaging legislation that he might sign into law. But I know he's smart enough and I would hope that there are enough responsible people in the Congress that, combined with the slowness with which the ship of state changes direction, that such risks are avoidable and we could begin to make some progress in this country.

I've concluded that regardless of any other consideration or how I might have voted in the past or how much I know about or like the candidates, there's really only one choice that might result in some change in our country.

Oh my goodness. For all of you who have decided NOT to vote for John & Sarah because of her daughers pregnancy....Get a life!!!!! You must not have kids. As parents we all teach our children what we believe is right...ethically, morally and acceptance in society. However, kids are kids...and they get caught up in situations that we wish they hadn't....early pregancy, drugs, tatoos, piercing. The best thing is that parents have unconditional love and will do anything they can in order to be for their kids, when needed.

Many Mom's work. I have worked full time since my daughters were infants. I have had a wonderful husband who has been a very hands-on Dad as well as supported me in my professional goals. My girls have turned out fine. Oh, by the way, one of our daughers is and adult and has disabilities all of her life. Easy for us...NO WAY, but then again it is worse for her!

S___ happens. Families deal with lots of adversities.

Teenage pregancies are tough and nothing parents would hope for their son or daughter.

Not voting for John & Sarah if fine...but find a better reason than because her daughter is pregnant.

Originally Posted by Villages Kahuna

OK, by the time you read this all the conventions will be over, the impassioned speeches with the zingers directed at the opponent over, the hoarse-throated delegates will all be on their way home...and we'll all be left to consider our voting decision. Oh, there will be extensive negative advertising on both sides because both candidate's handlers seem to think that's an effective way to campaign. Maybe we can find it in our minds to ignore all that crapola.

Earlier I commented that our choice seems to be...another four years like the last eight...or, the possibility of some long-needed action on pressing problems facing our nation.

I still think that's our choice, and it has nothing at all to do with the personalities of the candidates or their chosen VP's, their families, those that they count as their "base", how much money they can raise, the results of the debates...none of that stuff.

If John McCain wins the presidency, there's little chance that anything that he said he will do while campaigning will actually get done. It won't be because he doesn't want to change some things or that he won't try. He'll have to rely on a heavily Democratic Congress and a Republican minority where many members dislike him. He has been a maverick over the years and has not followed the GOP party line. The result is he doesn't have much political capital on either side of the aisle. I believe his presidency would be marked by four more years of polarized and bitter inaction.

Tick off the things he says he will do and ask yourself whether there's even a remote chance that a Democratic Congress with a Republican minority which has much imbedded enmity against him will cooperate. In fact, I think there's a real chance that the Democrats will wind up with a sufficiently large majority in both houses that they will simply go ahead with their list of platform plans, regardless of what a President McCain might ask them to do. Then we could find ourselves in a pass-veto-pass stalemate and bitter feelings all around and total frustration within the electorate.

A President Obama would have the political capital to get just about anything done that he wants. Oh, that would be unless there's an even further intra-party fracture between the far left and centrists among the Democrats. But at least his election would result in the possibility that sorely-needed legislation might be passed to address longstanding problems in our country. The risk we would run with Obama is that the Congress would pass some dumb or even damaging legislation that he might sign into law. But I know he's smart enough and I would hope that there are enough responsible people in the Congress that, combined with the slowness with which the ship of state changes direction, that such risks are avoidable and we could begin to make some progress in this country.

I've concluded that regardless of any other consideration or how I might have voted in the past or how much I know about or like the candidates, there's really only one choice that might result in some change in our country.

You bring out some very good points.

There is always a risk of dumb laws, especially when one party controls the Congress and the Executive Branch. That has been a major complaint of the Democratic party during the first years of the current administration, and a viable one. The "absolute power corrupts absolutely" concept comes as close as it can under our Constitution when one party controls the Congress and the Executive Branch, and we need to ask ourselves if we want that situation again. If we don't, then there has to be flexibility in voting - balancing one's congressional versus presidential ballot choices.

I like the idea of needing that super-majority to enact a new law. It would at least mean that the country, rather than the party or any other special interest, gains.

Passing more laws first starts with the Congress, and the laws by themselves are often worthless. Each year a number of laws are enacted without the requisite funding to make them effective. No funding tied to the law, the law isn't enforced - it really is that simple.

What would be refreshing would be to have no more new laws, and we start enforcing or enacting what's already on the books.

Dancer I see your back on totv,



I'M WAITING FOR MY APOLOGY, PUT UP OR SHUT UP. YOU HAVE LIED ABOUT ME NOW BE WOMEN ENOUGH TO ADMIT IT.

I'M WAITING Benj

Originally Posted by meriboo

Oh my goodness. For all of you who have decided NOT to vote for John & Sarah because of her daughers pregnancy....Get a life!!!!! You must not have kids. As parents we all teach our children what we believe is right...ethically, morally and acceptance in society. However, kids are kids...and they get caught up in situations that we wish they hadn't....early pregancy, drugs, tatoos, piercing. The best thing is that parents have unconditional love and will do anything they can in order to be for their kids, when needed.

Many Mom's work. I have worked full time since my daughters were infants. I have had a wonderful husband who has been a very hands-on Dad as well as supported me in my professional goals. My girls have turned out fine. Oh, by the way, one of our daughers is and adult and has disabilities all of her life. Easy for us...NO WAY, but then again it is worse for her!

S___ happens. Families deal with lots of adversities.

Teenage pregancies are tough and nothing parents would hope for their son or daughter.

Not voting for John & Sarah if fine...but find a better reason than because her daughter is pregnant.

Just so you know where I stand. My not voting for the McCain/Palin ticket has nothing to do with her daughter or any personal matter. I am not voting for them because I simply do not believe in their politics. I didn't like John McCain's stands and Sarah Palin's are even more conservative. I just find it a bad ticket. I don't like anything that either of them stand for. Period. It's that simple.

"Change" "I don't like" etc etc are such empty words. Please tell me specifically what it is you don't agree with in regards to John and Sarah. What has Sarah P done in office that you don't like? Tell me please be specific!

Can you??

Handie :joke:

KAHUANA.....what positive changes do you anticipate if Sen Obama is elected ? Universal healthcare ? A variation of his Global Poverty Act ?

I assume you have read about his training in Chicago to be an organizer, his allegiance to the training of Sal Alinsky, and how that job was done (tell them how bad they had it, and appeal to their selfish interests) and his connections to other radicals in that area. He is the hero of the radical left wing...he is the answer to all they want.

I understand the feeling about Sen McCain, but I cannot believe this country is ready for a radical left wing President and a liberal congress.

I am NOT saying one word about Sen Obama's character, but he IS EXTREME in his idealogy for sure.

What is it that you think Sen Obama will give you.

Originally Posted by Villages Kahuna

I've concluded that regardless of any other consideration or how I might have voted in the past or how much I know about or like the candidates, there's really only one choice that might result in some change in our country.

Change can be a great thing if the change that occurs is for the better. However, to just vote for change for change sake, one would have to take the position that all aspects of life are bad and any change that occurs would be for the better.

Where I personally am most concerned about bad change is Obama's views on terrorism. Any fair analysis of the Bush presidency would have to include that he has been effective in keeping us attack free after 9/11. On 9/12/01, how many people would have thought that 7 years later there would have been no al Qarda attacks against our homeland? This did not occur by accident. Obama is on record saying that the appropriate means to address terrorism is the one used by the Clinton administration - the same method that culminated in 9/11. If this is the type of change that we can expect from an Obama administration, I want nothing to do with it.

If I were a Democrat, I would also want nothing to do with it - for two reasons. First, another attack will obviously result in more deaths, and if they can meet their objective, the death toll would be orders of magnitude greater than 9/11. Secondly, such an attack, if shown to be facilitated by changes to Bush policies, would be the death nell of the Democratic Party. It would take decades before the American public would again trust the Democrats with national security.

NJBLUE...I read a book a few years ago by David Kaplan chronicling the work of a terrorist group in Japan where they succesfully gassed the subway. In this book, it is shown how easy it could be and how groups are daily searching to get a nuclear device. If this group had a few more dollars that was their goal.

I know that we should not live in fear and I dont...however your point about terrorism which seems to be "pooh poohed" by the left, is very valid. These are people who have said over and over they want to kill us, and not matter how long it takes they will.

THIS IS AN ISSUE and a very important issue in my mind. I am not a fear monger but a realist.