Politics

People who can lie about something so clearly a lie really scare me profoundly.


The report said she abused power. The finding said she abused power. All the newspaper reports on the decision say the findings were that she abused power.

How can she say they found she did nothing wrong?????

Ummmm...she'll spin it to say abusing power=good? Like, she's being a powerful woman? Ya think?

She is out and out claiming triumph. As in an actor saying they GOT the part, when they did NOT.

FINAL DEBATE! Ok, I though McCain was less shockingly weird and robot-llike than he was in the previous two, and though he almost actually tried to present some substantive viewpoints, he didn't stick with that intention, and therefore did not do it. His Ayers and Joe the Plumber stuff were just pathetic.

Obama continues to seem like a reasonable, intellegent, interested-in-finding real solutions to making our collective everybody-who-does-not-make-quarter-of a-million-dollars lives better.

I do not blame people who make $260,000 a year, have mortgages they cannot afford, for opposing him. He will not help that 2% of people.

But I surely do not understand anybody making less than $200,000 oposing him. And I really do not understand zilionaires caring who wins on a financial level. They have zillions and are immune to real concerns.

Love to hear all other points of view, especialy from all those who make more than a quarter of a million a year.

My local plumbers might make that much. Goodness knows they charge four times what I make per hour to have a visit.

(Somehow I doubt they do make that much around here, but I know that both they and I work very hard for all our income).

Joe the Plumber isn't a quarter-millionaire just from working hard for years and years as McCain says. If he actualy makes that much, he is ripping off people like me.

I thought McAin did okay for the first 30 minutes but after that it went downhill. hE kept brigbing up Ayrs and the terroist connection. You Know what ? People DO NOT WANT TO HEAR THAT. we are in a recession. Do you know that 10% of americansare now on food stamps? Look the economics and the policies of the last eight years have not worked. PERIOD.

Quote :

But I surely do not understand anybody making less than $200,000 oposing him. And I really do not understand zilionaires caring who wins on a financial level. They have zillions and are immune to real concerns.

As I've said, I have a very good friend who's a George Bush Republican. As I've also said, we don't discuss politics. Even if she brings it up, I actually keep my mouth shut. I know, hard to believe, right?

Anywhoo, her family is very rich. You know, with the trust funds, etc. She keeps complaining to me how her family is going broke with what's happening to the economy and how much less they're worth (I will admit that when you have millions, and your net worth is decreased also by millions, it can seem a bit daunting.)

So, she also keeps saying how her dad is telling her Obama is going to win and they'll be taxed even more, etc., and they have to tighten their belts.

She also gets really upset at how much of her paycheck goes poof and how is it fair that they worked hard and earned all this money and just because they have that much, they get taxed so hard.

So, I'm not saying I agree or disagree. I'm just trying to give you the perspective from the other side, since none of us here make that kind of money.

I do understand that there are people who have lots of money, however they got it, not wanting to give any of it to anybody else.

I just wish they would all move to a monarchy somewhere.

Hmmmm...interesting concept. I'll bring it up to my friend. ;-)

THIS! Is interesting!!!!!

Quote :

Unlikely Newspapers Endorse Obama
AP
posted: 4 HOURS 2 MINUTES AGO

WASHINGTON (Oct. 17) - Democrat Barack Obama on Friday won endorsements from two unlikely newspapers -- the Chicago Tribune and the Los Angeles Times.

While the Tribune is the largest daily in Obama's hometown, the publication hasn't backed a Democrat in its 161-year history. And the Times hasn't endorsed a presidential candidate since 1972, when it backed President Richard M. Nixon's re-election. This is also the first time it's endorsing a Democrat for president.

In an editorial posted on its Web site, The Tribune said the country needs a president who can lead it through a "perilous time" and restore "a common sense of national purpose." Obama is the best candidate to do that, the editorial board said.

"We have tremendous confidence in his intellectual rigor, his moral compass and his ability to make sound, thoughtful, careful decisions," the Tribune said. "He is ready."

The Tribune said it liked Republican presidential nominee John McCain, but added that it's "hard to figure John McCain these days."

The Times, the country's fourth-largest newspaper, said McCain's campaign had left the candidate "nearly unrecognizable." His selection of Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin for running mate was "irresponsible," it said.
"Palin is the most unqualified vice presidential nominee of a major party in living memory," the Times said. "The decision calls into question just what kind of thinking — if that's the appropriate word — would drive the White House in a McCain presidency."

The Times said the U.S. needs a president who displays grace under pressure, is not prone to volatile gestures and understands the legal foundations of American freedom.

"Obama is educated and eloquent, sober and exciting, steady and mature. He represents the nation as it is, and as it aspires to be," the Times said.

Yep, it does seem that more of mainstream America is wanting some calm and substantive reasoning in the top power layer. Tha tis a very good thing, in my view.

on another note, Sarah Palin was on Saturday Night Live tonight. I am sure there will be clips so you can see it onoline, so I won't summarize now.

My take: Palin would actually much rather have a career doing something like performing on SNL than being Governor or President.

She seems just plain depressed on the show. She danced (incomprehensibly) to a rap song trashing her and her views. She (or at Least MCCain's campaign) could certainly have gotten her out of it, so why did she do it? Insane.

I did see her on SNL. Funny, because I felt she was really "in her element" there. She is WAY more comfortable on TV/behind a newsdesk and entertaining than she is at politics.

Her whole "good sport" thing I thought came off pretty well. She seems like a really fun person. That doesn't mean I want her a heartbeat away from the presidency.

The thing with shooting the moose was hilarious. I was surprised she was totally OK with it. I guess she wanted to show she could poke fun at herself. That's why the politicians go on these things. So we can see that they're real people with a good sense of humor.

Still, I don't agree with anything she stands for.

So, to sum up:

Go out for a night on the town with her? SURE!

Having her as the next VP? Not so much.

Also! CHECK THIS OUT!!!

Quote :

Powell endorses Obama, chides McCain campaign tone

By STEPHEN OHLEMACHER, Associated Press Writer Stephen Ohlemacher, Associated Press Writer – 37 mins ago

AP – Former Secretary of State Powell endorses Obama

WASHINGTON – Colin Powell, a Republican who was President Bush's first secretary of state, endorsed Democrat Barack Obama for president Sunday and criticized the tone of Republican John McCain's campaign.

The former chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff said either candidate, both of them senators, is qualified to be commander in chief. But he said Obama is better suited to handle the nation's economic problems as well as help improve its standing in the world.

"It isn't easy for me to disappoint Sen. McCain in the way that I have this morning, and I regret that," Powell, interviewed on NBC's "Meet the Press," said of his longtime friend, the Arizona senator.

But, he added: "I think we need a transformational figure. I think we need a president who is a generational change and that's why I'm supporting Barack Obama, not out of any lack of respect or admiration for Sen. John McCain."

Powell's endorsement has been much anticipated because he is a Republican with impressive foreign policy credentials, a subject

Sarah Palin is a good sport and not a terrible actress. She is not a good candidate and she's be a terrible President.

Colin Powell endorsing Obama is very important, and he was extraordinarily eloquent on the subject. Pat Buchanan looks like he's going to have a stroke.

I did something I've never done before today; I canvassed. I got on the phone and called people in New Mexico. Totally not even close to my comfort zone. But I did it.

He's got to win this thing.

YAY for abrahammy!!!!

I would love to know how you were received.

I spent my day at AIDS Walk L.A. As a volunteer my job was to take photos. I got some great ones of all sorts of people...kids, teens, girls, boys, men, women, every race I know about, and my fave (which I will post here), a couple of Tatoo people.

The woman said to me with pride, "We are both Positive, and have been coming to AIDS Walk for 25 years".

I cannot tell you how wonderful that is. People are living with HIV these days longer and better and with fewer drugs.

The cloud hangs, though, because the epidemic is so rampant worldwide.

SO far we are very lucky in the U.S. in that it has not spread that much to heterosexuals. But there is nothing about the virus that excludes us..we are just lucky (as long as we don't share needles...the people in the pic got it before they knew that tattoo needles must not be shared, even if disinfected).

Abrahammy, I am curious how you were received by New Mexico. Having recently been there myself (grr...my friend STILL has my SIM card) I found the political lines there to be drawn quite clearly.

Where my friend (the Republican) has her cabin, it was all VERY VERY conservative. The next town over only had a Republican headquarters. I knew to keep my Obama-lovin' ass VERY quiet!

Now, when we got to the big city, Santa Fe, that all changed around the other way. Obama stickers everywhere. That's where I saw the Bush "Liar" sticker.

My friend says she feels better with the Colin Powell endorsement.

frazz, that's so wonderful that you volunteer there. That is an awesome picture! Those people look really familiar. I can't place it, but feel I know them. So either they're actors or someone I've met.

They acted like performers (in a good way) very comfy interacting, very friendly and charming.

I don't think they are actors who play parts, but maybe were on that show about Tattoo people?

I am also hoping we will hear how it went for abrahammy.

The Republican National Committee forked out $150,000 to dress, coif and make up Palin and her family since she was picked two months ago.

And they call themselves the same as regular working people?

The hypocrisy is infuriating.

More on Palin and the $150,000 spent on her clothes.

I think buying her (and even her family) some presentable clothes is fine. I can even imagine, given the high-profile of it all, spending a gigantic amount, like $20,000.

$150,000? What the hell did they buy?

They spent THAT MUCH on clothes in one month.MOst people could live off that money for two years; Just another reason Sarah Six Pack and John the Plumber MCain are totally out of touch with the middle and working class people of this country.

It is hilarious that the Republicans are usually the ones with the money and pander to the rich while selling themselves as regular Joe's and painting the dems as "elitest".

I have a good friend who (bear with me) has some Mormon friends with whom we've socialized. Obviously I try not to talk with them about religion and politics and so everything is fine.

Well, one of them sent me an email in favor of prop 8 talking about the bullshit that they'll teach it in schools and that whole "protect marriage" crap.

I knew I had to answer the email, but of course I had to calm down first. Here's what I said:

OK, I have to do something here that doesn't make me entirely comfortable, but I feel I must say something. I shall try to stick to the issue.

You probably don't know this, but I am a liberal democrat. I don't usually have trouble with people who have views different from mine. I always hate to use the "some of my best friends are..." thing, because I think it's very condescending, but I do have a very good and wonderful friend who's a George Bush Republican. We just don't talk about politics. Honestly, though, if she was for this "Prop 8" I would have to reconsider being her friend. I feel that strongly about it.

I feel it is hate wrapped in "protecting marriage". That they will start teaching it in schools is a lie. I, personally wouldn't care either way because I don't believe you are "taught" to be gay or that you have a choice. There are too many gay people raised by heterosexuals, and who even have parents who are anti-gay, who are gay.

This initiative in particular makes me weep. Literally. There are not enough words to express how upset it makes me. I believe that if two people are in love and want to commit to each other for the rest of their lives, it's a beautiful thing.

I also don't think marriage is just a religious institution. Anyone who has gotten a divorce will tell you that!

There are so many heterosexual people out there getting married for the wrong reasons. I feel they are the ones who make a mockery of marriage.

I am a "live and let live" person. As long as someone else doesn't try to tell me that their lifestyle, religion, way of being - is the right way and what I'm doing is the wrong way, then it really doesn't concern me. I guess you and I agree that forcing your beliefs on others is wrong, but disagree on whether gay marriage falls under that category. I don't feel that gay people getting married is forcing their ideas down everyone's throat. I feel that putting intiatives like this on the ballot does that.

I believe that believing in God is believing in tolerance for everyone from all walks of life. That denying someone their constitutional rights is wrong.

I know there's no way for me to convince you what I believe is right and vice-versa. I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree and we'll both be praying on election day for the outcome we desire.

Look, Holli, if you had written to me about supporting McCain, I would have let it go, but this initiative is quite the hot button and I felt I needed to state my case as you've stated yours.

Thanks for letting me do that.

UPDATE: She wrote a very nice email back. She agrees to disagree and we both avoided name-calling. All is well.

I actually do not understand what is scary about gay marriage to people who are adamantly against it.

How do they think it will harm their own marriages? How do they think it will harm their children?

I do get it that sex, in and off itself, is kind of icky to think about pretty much all people who are not oneself doing it, but marriage?

Civil unions do not treat the unionees the same in terms of benefits and social security, etc. That is why it is important that gay marriage be allowed.

A life-partner is a life partenr, and all life-partners should be considered..life-partners. With all the same rights and baggage.

Why are they afraid of that?

(Mind you I do understand, however much I diapprove) of people who are just horrified to think of gay sex...but they are also horried to think of sex at all. Mention these words to a person who says they are against gay marriage for some high faluting reason: "mmm, mmm, I was jsut thinking how good it would feel to have George Clooney's penis in my wet vagina."

LOL!!!! PUKE CITY!!!

OK! Thanks for THAT imagery! Heh.

I know someone who is worried that suddenly gay couples will be walking in the mall and showing affection and how girls kissing girls is the cool thing to do now, even if they're not gay and how her kid is "confused".

I said that first of all, there are currently gay couples all over and just because they can now get married, doesn't mean sudden PDA. Second, I wouldn't care if there was PDA.

Also, as I told her, my mom was pretty overprotective, but some stuff she did do right:

I could talk to her about ANYTHING and she didn't tell me NOT to do drugs and NOT to have sex. She simply said that if I wanted to try drugs I should do it at home and to tell her if I wanted to have sex. No subject was off limits. I could get as graphic with her as I wanted. As a result, I led a clean life.

My friend would say (we've known each other since we're kids) that even if I had pot-smoking parents, I wouldn't have done drugs. I said that wasn't the point.

These people believe that merely TEACHING the kids about homosexuality will MAKE THEM HOMOSEXUALS. Like, some little girl will think "that's a grand idea!" and go get herself a girlfriend. They think teaching about drugs and sex, etc., will make the kid think that it's alright. I am living proof that it's not true. I was taught about everything and I have always been a clean-living heterosexual.

I also said that if I came home "confused" because I saw girls kissing, my mom would explain it to me in a non-judgemental way, thus eliminating the "confusion" and then it became no big deal and that was the end of it.

She even talked about these sluttress singers becoming a 10-year-old's role model. I explained that if that's happened, the parents have fucked up ROYALLY. That this all begins and ends with the parents.

If something is held as taboo, there isn't a kid who won't want to do it. If you make it no big deal, they'll think it's NO BIG DEAL.

So, yeah, these parents are worried their kids are gonna learn about homosexuality in school and suddenly their kid will think it's OK to be a homosexual and then just become one because it's cool. The religious people think the homosexual lifestyle is WRONG because the BIBLE SAYS SO and thus would probably kill themselves if Johnny said he was in love with Jimmy.

My friend asked if she thinks my way is right and the people who are for prop 8 are wrong.

I said that I think denying someone their constitutional rights because of a belief someone else has that is purely based on religion is 100% completely and totally wrong and that my "live and let live" policy is right.

Quote :

Civil unions do not treat the unionees the same in terms of benefits and social security, etc. That is why it is important that gay marriage be allowed.

A life-partner is a life partenr, and all life-partners should be considered..life-partners. With all the same rights and baggage.

Why are they afraid of that?

Religion. They take Paul and Leviticus literally and as the word of God. Since I take certain parts of the Bible with a grain of salt, and I am not offended by the idea of gay marriage.

I do think that civil unions SHOULD treat unionees the same in terms of benefits and social security. My position on this is that religions have the right to choose what kind of union they BLESS, but people should be allowed to share their lives and legal assets with anybody they choose as part of the doctrine of the separation of church and state.

I am not much of a Bible sholar.

What do Paul and Leviticus say that make people think that gay marriage will hurt them?

I do know the general idea that gay people are abominations (which means they go to hell when they die? or does that mean they should be slaughtered on earth?)...but I don't really know what the Bible says.

Unfortunately, the Bible says that gay people should be executed for having gay sex. And yeah, it does say that. I'm not going to sugarcoat it or try to explain it away. I do think that many biblical laws were very much products of their time and it is very unfortunate that people these days try to apply violent ideas of the past to present circumstances.

Wow.