Calling Obama supporters

[Jennifer in NH]

I think it might be a political ad disguised as a thread. Yet here I sit...

me too...train wreck or troll...yet I keep reading.:confused:

[kokotg]

More socialist leaning than Obama, you mean, or, say, Teddy Roosevelt and Hillary Clinton and Bill O'Reilly? yes. He's also considered the third greatest president in American history, behind Lincoln and Washington, so I don't think the comparison is going to do much to hurt Obama.

[kokotg]

nevermind

[Kelli in TN]

Oh come now. That's a right wing contrivance to begin with. The procedure is called "intact dilation and extraction" and should be left up to the patient's doctor to decide when and if to use. Not a bunch of old men pandering to the right wing base. Nobody votes in favor of a medical procedure... they vote in favor of allowing a doctor, who knows much more about it than you or I, to be the one to decide when to use it. Once again, a sound bite and not anything useful.

 

.

 

Actually, it may come as a surprise to you, but there are people for whom the preservation of unborn life is a deeply held conviction.

 

Some of us are not political by nature and we don't look at everything as left or right.

[Angela in TN]

I honestly believe that the NPC appearance was payback to Obama from Rev. Wright for denouncing some of his earlier comments. I think he went out of his way, not just there, but in a number of other appearances he made that week, to do as much damage as he could to Obama. You could tell this was very painful and ugly split between the two. I agree with all you are saying. But much the same can be said for many groups in this country.

 

I agree that Rev. Wright's talking tour was all about showing Obama who's boss BUT I don't think he changed who he was just to stick it to him I think he quit hiding who he was kwim? I had to laugh at the tag under your name I had not noticed it before too funny:lol:

[Pam "SFSOM" in TN]

Still channels?

 

This is heresay, right? Buddies, who I'm sure have no political position, have brought up a nickname from prep school and you actually putting that in the "con" column?

 

His first marriage? The affair, right? Yeah, that stunk. Are we allowed to dig up marriage issues on all candidates now, because...well...that wouldn't be pretty (except maybe whatsisname, the guy from MA? He was pretty squeaky clean).

 

It just seems somewhat petty. Especially in the light of other associative flaws in Obama that we are so very, very, very willing to overlook.

 

Jo

 

 

Mmm, no. People look back into school days all the time. What was he like on the ball field? How did he treat those who were not in his economic "class"? How did he handle pressure? What was his work ethic? I don't think that's irrelevant. I was agreeing (because McCain is the OP's candidate) that superior education does not ensure character. At whatever level. And yes, I was turning it back for him to reflect on. It actually isn't in MY con column. I'm more interested in recent events (or lack thereof). I personally believe people can change. That actually wasn't my point in mentioning it. His education did not prevent even HIM having a perception of bad character during the time of his receiving said education.

 

(That was convoluted. It made sense when I brought it up, but I will concede that you are right. It probably was petty, but I don't *hate* John McCain, and it wasn't meant like -- stab, stab, TWIST. I am disappointed in John McCain. For more recent stuff. And I made a point using ancient history (:lol::lol::lol:) -- sorry -- as an example. I retract it. No sackcloth and ashes, but I concede this point.)

 

Associative flaws? Not personal flaws? Other people's personal flaws, right? And not necessarily overlook. I see the issues differently, having been in churches EXACTLY like his, only white.

 

As to hearsay, well, he didn't sue the Washington Post for reporting the story, and the sources were doubled up, not using single sources. So no, I don't think so. Again, humans are human. But do I want a habitually thoughtful man with an angry pastor to be my president, or do I want an habitually angry man with a thoughtful pastor to be my president?

 

Or will I just vote for Ron Paul and be done with it?

 

It wasn't the affair per se. Anyone can have an affair. And I didn't want to post it in the first place, so I'm not delving into that now. (Sorry. I just can't.)

[battlemaiden]

More socialist leaning than Obama, you mean, or, say, Teddy Roosevelt and Hillary Clinton and Bill O'Reilly? yes. He's also considered the third greatest president in American history, behind Lincoln and Washington, so I don't think the comparison is going to do much to hurt Obama.

 

He brought us through war- that was popular. I can appreciate his popularity rating on that one. Ahhhh, for a militarily strong nationalist Democrat again....:)

 

His socialist policies have had long term effects that I could do without....which now that I think about it is a perfect segway back to our incredible looming national debt problem. ;)

[kokotg]

Ahhhh, for a militarily strong nationalist Democrat again....:)

 

 

 

Ahhh, for an international conflict with the relative moral clarity of WWII again....;)

[Pam "SFSOM" in TN]

Because that dude's on the dime.

 

ROFLOL!!!

 

:lol::lol::lol::lol::lol:

[astrid]

IPersonally, I find your style in this conversation to be a little distressing. I feel that your approach is confrontational and I feel as if your questions themselves are more a set-up than an invitation to dialogue... that might just be your conversational style clashing with mine, and I assume that your intentions are positive, but I wanted to let you know that I find the tone off-putting, fwiw. So, if I sound a little defensive, please forgive me - I *do* want to have a pleasant dialogue! :)

 

:iagree:

 

<sniff> <sniff>

I smell troll.

[Pam "SFSOM" in TN]

Pam, why? Because people are disagreeing about politics? You and I could have some rowsing debates, could we not?

 

And so could our kids!!!;) Right?

 

You should not let a difference of opinion about politics make you so upset.

 

Right! :D

 

I know. I should NOT.

 

I am by nature a peacemaker, though. But tonight I'm snarly.

 

I don't like to be snarly.

 

And you and I would have gentle debates, seasoned with salt. With a side of chocolate. Fair trade, of course.

[Kelli in TN]

Right! :D

 

I know. I should NOT.

 

I am by nature a peacemaker, though. But tonight I'm snarly.

 

I don't like to be snarly.

 

And you and I would have gentle debates, seasoned with salt. With a side of chocolate. Fair trade, of course.

 

But our kids might not.

 

Tell you what, bring the boy here and let's put them in a room, under our watchful eyes of course, and let's see if they debate.:lol:

[Pam "SFSOM" in TN]

:D Yup, I'm bout the dullest tool in this shed... there be sum smart ladys here.

And I have a BS in Psychology! :lol: Do you want fries with that Coke?

 

I only hang out here because I like to sit on the porch with the big dogs. Dang!

 

And there are folks with high school diplomas here who not only argue circles around me, but are kinder about it to boot. Dang! (Again.)

 

Nature of the board. Hat tip to Susan and Mrs. Wise for setting the intellectual bar with the publication of a certain little fat book.

[battlemaiden]

Associative flaws? Not personal flaws? Other people's personal flaws, right? And not necessarily overlook. I see the issues differently, having been in churches EXACTLY like his, only white.

 

As to hearsay, well, he didn't sue the Washington Post for reporting the story, and the sources were doubled up, not using single sources. So no, I don't think so. Again, humans are human. But do I want a habitually thoughtful man with an angry pastor to be my president, or do I want an habitually angry man with a thoughtful pastor to be my president?

 

You know, I questioned the use of the word "associative" after I walked away from the computer. I really don't mean because of his associations we should think ill of him. Carefully now: The people Obama has consistently associated himself with during his political years (not formative) give me concern about *his* perceptions and judgement. Does that clarify it a little better? I really don't care about Rev. Wright, crazies are a dime a dozen and come in all sorts of flavors (like you point out), but Obama has the very real potential of sitting across the room from Kim Jong-Il one day- I don't just want him "thoughtful" I want him shrewd, does that make sense?

 

I also want to point out that McCain is the first to say he was a jerk at the Academy. He is pretty honest about just "coasting" through life until he had all that time to reflect after being shot down. I guess am trusting in the refining from that experience.

 

I really am having trouble being concerned about his reported anger issues- but then I'm a huge fan of Teddy Rosevelt (hit me with your best government interference in corporations jokes now:D).

 

Jo

[battlemaiden]

Ahhh, for an international conflict with the relative moral clarity of WWII again....;)

 

The international conflict wasn't started by the United States, but it effected us. What would have you proposed our response be? Did we enter too late? Too early? Should we have ignored it all together?

 

I'm not being snarky. I sincerely need to know the reasoning behind your quick, rather short, rather vague response.

[Pam "SFSOM" in TN]

You know, I questioned the use of the word "associative" after I walked away from the computer. I really don't mean because of his associations we should think ill of him. Carefully now: The people Obama has consistently associated himself with during his political years (not formative) give me concern about *his* perceptions and judgement. Does that clarify it a little better? I really don't care about Rev. Wright, crazies are a dime a dozen and come in all sorts of flavors (like you point out), but Obama has the very real potential of sitting across the room from Kim Jong-Il one day- I don't just want him "thoughtful" I want him shrewd, does that make sense?

 

Black man with a name that is pointed to with a sneer, who is a product of a mixed-race marriage, who got himself where he is today and has even paid off his student loans already? (Heh!) Gotta be some "shrewd" there somewhere. I'm ok with how a thoughtful man might be the one you want playing chess when the stakes are life and death rather than the one who rushes in to move without realizing his queen is about to be taken by his opponent's knight.

 

I also want to point out that McCain is the first to say he was a jerk at the Academy. He is pretty honest about just "coasting" through life until he had all that time to reflect after being shot down. I guess am trusting in the refining from that experience.

 

Oh, I do hope so. I will say this among other complimentary things I could say about him -- he certainly is not coasting through life at this point, nor in the recent past.

 

I really am having trouble being concerned about his reported anger issues-

 

I live with an angry man. (Not bashing, but as an adult child of an alcoholic, he struggles.) I cannot fathom a nation hostage to the flashes of temper that could compromise us horribly. Stakes are way too high. See aforementioned chess game. :)

 

I'm not completely comfortable with his age, either. (I know that makes me shallow, but it does concern me.)

[kokotg]

Are you talking about WWII? I'm not criticizing our role in WWII. Sorry, I wasn't clear--I was evoking the "last good war" line of thinking.

[Pam "SFSOM" in TN]

The international conflict wasn't started by the United States, but it effected us. What would have you proposed our response be? Did we enter too late? Too early? Should we have ignored it all together?

 

I'm not being snarky. I sincerely need to know the reasoning behind your quick, rather short, rather vague response.

 

The purpose for going to war was very clear and unambiguous back then. She pines, tongue firmly in cheek, for an equally clear and unambiguous conflict in recent history.

[battlemaiden]

The purpose for going to war was very clear and unambiguous back then. She pines, tongue firmly in cheek, for an equally clear and unambiguous conflict in recent history.

 

Oh, phooey and I must say I wish for better recognition of threat and stronger backbone to face those dangers in this generation.

 

I've been called on a journey to a far off kingdom now. I must answer the call. I bid farewell.

 

Jo

[kokotg]

Oh, phooey and I must say I wish for better recognition of threat and stronger backbone to face those dangers in this generation.

 

 

 

you know, I absolutely agree with this--word for word, and, yet, somehow, I don't think we mean the same thing by it. How does that happen? :tongue_smilie:

[Pam "SFSOM" in TN]

But our kids might not.

 

Tell you what, bring the boy here and let's put them in a room, under our watchful eyes of course, and let's see if they debate.:lol:

 

Hahahahaha!

 

Ha!

 

We'll pretend not to listen.

[Nestof3]

First, the middle class is not the group that needs a tax cut. Bruce Bartlett notes that people making below 40k/yr pay virtually no income taxes at all when you factor into the equation what they get from the govt. It is the rich who need the tax cut.

 

These people in the middle class group are saying: we don't pay much in federal taxes, but we also don't make as much as someone else, so the gov't should give us some more to be fair. I've seen it in statements made by people who are receiving more in the form of a "stimulus check" than what they paid in in federal taxes. Somehow they feel it is justified because they make less than so and so. It's called class envy.

[Nestof3]

You are talking about one instance with your pastor correct? If it were ongoing either about your race or others would you tolerate it? If you can't see any of the remarks Rev. Wright made as racist would you consent to race baiting? He preaches a victim mentality, blame someone else for your problems. The government killing the black community with aids?:confused: He's filling a void and creating an "us" against "them" frame of thought. This is the overall vibe this guy puts off, I got it from watching his sermons and watching him at the National Press Club. Surely Obama got that vibe in knowing him as he did all those years?

 

You are so right! If it bothered Obama so much -- if he disagreed with it so much -- he would have left.

[Pam "SFSOM" in TN]

These people in the middle class group are saying: we don't pay much in federal taxes, but we also don't make as much as someone else, so the gov't should give us some more to be fair. I've seen it in statements made by people who are receiving more in the form of a "stimulus check" than what they paid in in federal taxes. Somehow they feel it is justified because they make less than so and so. It's called class envy.

 

I don't know what it's called officially, but I call that just crazy.

[LibraryLover]

I don't know what it's called officially, but I call that just crazy.

 

 

This made me chuckle. I am voting for Obama, so you know I am a bleeding heart hope-for-change type, but the crazy comments I've heard from people about the stim checks... 'I only got $300! I need more than that!" I try to explain...and it's still, "But I need it more than people who made more money! and " I can't afford to pay *any* taxes!" And I am thinking...with that stim check, you just didn't.

 

This liberal is thinking Fair Tax. I really am and that fills me with guilt.

 

 

I just don't understand people sometimes...although I understand why some would not understand me...or my vote or my guilt. :lurk5:

 

Kumbaya and all... :grouphug:

[Elaine]

This made me chuckle. I am voting for Obama, so you know I am a bleeding heart hope-for-change type, but the crazy comments I've heard from people about the stim checks... 'I only got $300! I need more than that!" I try to explain...and it's still, "But I need it more than people who made more money! and " I can't afford to pay *any* taxes!" And I am thinking...with that stim check, you just didn't.

 

This liberal is thinking Fair Tax. I really am and that fills me with guilt.

 

 

I just don't understand people sometimes...although I understand why some would not understand me...or my vote or my guilt. :lurk5:

 

Kumbaya and all... :grouphug:

 

Aww, Laurie! I have to honestly say that your post reminded me of the scene in Toy Story when Rex says, "Great, now I have guilt!":lol:

 

Don't feel guilty. We love you!:grouphug:I'll light the bon fire and you start the first round of Kumbaya.;)

[Mrs Mungo]

OK, I just got a rep comment that reads:

"I cannot support a person who truly isn't American."

 

What does this mean? That you don't think Barak Obama is American just because his father wasn't from the US? His mother was American (FROM KANSAS!), he was mainly raised in the US. My kids have also lived (and two were born) outside of the US. Are they also not American enough for you? Was George Washington American? His parents weren't born in the US. How about Norman Schwarzkopf? He attended high school in IRAN!!!!

[Slartibartfast]

OK, I just got a rep comment that reads:

"I cannot support a person who truly isn't American."

 

What does this mean? That you don't think Barak Obama is American just because his father wasn't from the US? His mother was American, he was mainly raised in the US. My kids have also lived (and two were born) outside of the US. Are they also not American enough for you? Was George Washington American? His parents weren't born in the US. How about Norman Schwarzkopf? He attended high school in IRAN!!!!

 

You got rep based on where Obama is from?

 

 

:blink:

 

What does the country Obama's dad was born in have to do with your reputation?

[Pam "SFSOM" in TN]

OK, I just got a rep comment that reads:

"I cannot support a person who truly isn't American."

 

What does this mean? That you don't think Barak Obama is American just because his father wasn't from the US? His mother was American, he was mainly raised in the US. My kids have also lived (and two were born) outside of the US? Are they also not American enough for you? Was George Washington American? His parents weren't born in the US. How about Norman Schwarzkopf? He attended high school in IRAN!!!!

 

Maybe they meant you're not truly American, Mrs. M. :lol:

 

 

:patriot:

 

 

Perhaps I should go delete my "smart people" thread. LOL Do people think he's secretly a citizen of another country? The mind boggles.

[Mrs Mungo]

Maybe they meant you're not truly American, Mrs. M. :lol:

 

 

:patriot:

 

Hm, I didn't think Oklahoma was a foreign country. My hubby's from Texas, it seems to think it's another country so I guess he's not American, either. Maybe I can talk him into switching to the British army now that we're exposed. :tongue_smilie:

 

 

Perhaps I should go delete my "smart people" thread. LOL Do people think he's secretly a citizen of another country? The mind boggles.

 

I don't get it.

[Slartibartfast]

Hm, I didn't think Oklahoma was a foreign country. My hubby's from Texas, it seems to think it's another country so I guess he's not American, either. Maybe I can talk him into switching to the British army now that we're exposed. :tongue_smilie:

 

 

Maybe they aren't aware that NAs were declared American Citizens in 1924?

[Pam "SFSOM" in TN]

Hm, I didn't think Oklahoma was a foreign country. My hubby's from Texas, it seems to think it's another country so I guess he's not American, either. Maybe I can talk him into switching to the British army now that we're exposed. :tongue_smilie:

 

 

 

 

I don't get it.

 

I was snarling before at Mr. OP when he wailed that all would be well if only we could read and interpret data and understand the facts about how smart most of the board members were. I should take that back.

 

As to Texas, well, you know, people talk.

 

:lol:

[Mrs Mungo]

Maybe they aren't aware that NAs were declared American Citizens in 1924?

 

POSSIBLY! But I'm also Irish, surely that's white...I mean "American" enough?

[Mrs Mungo]

I was snarling before at Mr. OP when he wailed that all would be well if only we could read and interpret data and understand the facts about how smart most of the board members were. I should take that back.

 

Oh, no, I got THAT, I meant I didn't get the comment I received.

 

As to Texas, well, you know, people talk.

 

:lol:

 

:lol:

[Slartibartfast]

POSSIBLY! But I'm also Irish, surely that's white...I mean "American" enough?

 

 

*has vapors*

[Mrs Mungo]

*has vapors*

 

I'm sorry, I probably should not have said anything...racism really pushes my buttons like nothing else and that's how I'm interpreting the comment with lack of evidence to the contrary.

[Slartibartfast]

I'm sorry, I probably should not have said anything...racism really pushes my buttons like nothing else and that's how I'm interpreting the comment with lack of evidence to the contrary.

 

No worries.

[Vida Winter]

OR (here's an idea!) they could quit buying corporate boxes for every major sporting event, corporate jets, golf vacations for their execs and so forth. Sorry, I firmly believe most large corporations (and by large I mean multinational, publicly traded, etc) are flat-out evil so you aren't going to get anywhere with me with that argument.

 

Evil? Wow, that's harsh. I used to work for Hewlett Packard, and I saw a lot of integrity there. A good strong business means secure jobs, new hires, and a lot of money spent in the communities where they are located. When corporations can't make a profit, they are forced to shut down entire divisions which creates havoc with the families affected as well as the communities they live in.

[Slartibartfast]

Evil? Wow, that's harsh. I used to work for Hewlett Packard, and I saw a lot of integrity there. A good strong business means secure jobs, new hires, and a lot of money spent in the communities where they are located. When corporations can't make a profit, they are forced to shut down entire divisions which creates havoc with the families affected as well as the communities they live in.

 

How many employees does the HP center in India have?

[Vida Winter]

How many employees does the HP center in India have?

 

At the time I was employed some contract employees from India were used. I have no idea what that number is now. And I have no idea how that is relevant to this thread.

 

Is the use of contract employees from India (a thoroughly legal arrangement) considered evil? At most I would consider it competitive.

[nakitty]

At the time I was employed some contract employees from India were used. I have no idea what that number is now. And I have no idea how that is relevant to this thread.

 

Is the use of contract employees from India (a thoroughly legal arrangement) considered evil? At most I would consider it competitive.

 

http://72.14.253.104/search?q=cache:C4FY5hBPrM4J:spofga.org/immigration/2005/aug/more_jobs_to_india.php+how+many+jobs+has+HP+sent+to+india&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=1&gl=us

I would argue that it is "evil" to accept government incentives to build your business and then, once you are successful, take your business out of the country....starter wife anyone? 10% of their employees lost their jobs to India at the time of that article. That is 14,500 American workers out of work....for what? So they can stay "competitive" as you put it? If that were truly the case I would likely agree with you....because, in general, I think we have, as a nation, created a nasty dragon of an economy....a grouchy dragon that keeps biting us at every turn. HOWEVER, by all accounts...that isn't the case with HP....they were doing dandy....they just wanted to line their pockets even more. Intrinsically evil? No, but wrong all the same.

[cornopean]

This liberal is thinking Fair Tax. I really am and that fills me with guilt.

First, you are only the second liberal I know that supports the FairTax. Excellent.

but why do you feel guilt over that?

[Joanne]

Oh please grow up. Now you're pulling the "I'm taking my ball and going home" routine? I use one fun manhandle of a word... fine, retardican is of course inappropriate. How exactly is that insulting you? I didn't aim that at you, you weren't in that conversation at the time. But you feel it's appropriate to beat me with the good ol' "my son is fighting the war so you can't say anything against it".

 

Please... if I wanted to insult you I'd be much more accurate and plain about it.

 

Now comon... if you have something to add to the conversation you're more than welcome.

 

Excuse me? This was completely, totally and without a doubt inappropriate.

 

1) I *did* add the the content of the conversation with the post that I will quote, in part, below.

 

2) I don't appreciate, or deserve, to be told to "grow up" simply because I called you on your style and disagreed with your opinion.

 

3) I did not beat anyone with sharing my stepson's service; I added it to put context to my reaction to some of the rhetoric from people against this war. It IS personal to me as well as to many others.

 

4) Your words, "if I wanted to insult you......." are threatening and unkind.

 

Yoiu asked how did you insult me and went on to insult me with the above. I will, however, answer the question. It was pretty clear in my first response to you.

 

Are we clear?

 

This question and tone was unnecessary and inappropriate.

 

I said, about the war/situation:

 

Quote:

1) Complex

2) Pre-dates the administration you hate so much, and pre-dates those before that one

3) Presents no one correct action; are choices emerging from circumstances that stink and presents options that are the best of the worst

 

You said:

The problems of terrorism are complex. This administration doesn't seem to understand that. While you use the word do you really understand what you're saying? This problem of terrorism goes back about 4,000 years.

 

It seems to me that asking me if I understand the use of the word "complex" is quite insulting. I am aware of the history involved in the middle east, thank you, which is in large part what shapes my reaction to both extreme sides of the post 9/11 issues.

 

Answer: Yes, I know what I am really saying.

 

I am frustrated that you were allowed to engage with me on that level, uncalled. I'm frustrated at large over the avalanche of issues involved with our post 9/11 actions as a country and as a people.

 

President Bush was presented with the most challenging Presidency (arguably in competition). He was handed a dramatic episode in a situation that had been building momentum through many administrations and had been ineptly and under-dealt with by administrations of both sides. The fall out of 9/11 socially, morally, financially, and in terms of national security is unprecedented and profound. No perfect solution, response, reaction exists; no script of protocol is available. Would other persons have dealt with it differently? Certainly. And the same amount, if not content, of issues, concerns, passion would have been generated.

 

I do not wholeheartedly support President Bush, his choices, his course of action. But I do not wish to insult him, his administration or this country by reducing the issues presented to us in the last 6 years to sound byte-banter that fails to address or process the situation as a whole.

 

I will not engage with you further as I do not find your style safe or appropriate.

[Melinda in VT]

Actually, it may come as a surprise to you, but there are people for whom the preservation of unborn life is a deeply held conviction.

 

Some of us are not political by nature and we don't look at everything as left or right.

 

I could be completely misreading Phred's post that you are responding to, but I didn't think he was arguing that the abortion issue is itself right-wing, but rather that the way Obama's position was stated by the OP was very right-wing.

 

Both the term "partial birth abortion" and the way his voting record was stated "voted in favor of partial birth abortion" are loaded. I think that was what Phred was trying to correct.

 

Even if the OP had said "voted not to ban partial birth abortion" that would have been more accurate and less politically loaded.

[TXMomof4]

I can't answer from a national perspective, but I can from a local one :), at least on your question about reducing spending. First, I think there are areas where govt. at any level can find to reduce spending/waste. And I think raising any sort of taxes and fees should be a last resort and not the first line of defense. FWIW, I think the tax rate should be the same no matter how much one's income is.

 

What we are seeing in our state is the result of voter-supported legislation from the early 1990s that changed our state Constitution to limit property tax increases to 3% in any given year. What that means is that in years where inflation is higher than 3%, jurisdictions that receive support from property taxes are in the red. After many years of this, some communities in our state are literally closing down their libraries, they've stopped maintaining parks, and cut back on their police force, road maintenance and repair, etc. That is also why on your property tax bill, the assessed value of your home (the amount the tax is based on) is about 40% of its actual value, or what you could sell it for.

 

It's a no-win situation. Raise taxes and people (understandably) get upset. Lower taxes and people are happy until the govt. can no longer provide services they've become accustomed to.

 

From a national perspective though, there are PLENTY of things that don't have to be covered. I'm only using this reference because it is the one that sticks in my brain right now, but how about the $40 million for the woodstock museum? Seriously? A Woodstock museum? $40 Million dollars of taxpayer money? Is there an educational point to that? I know there are millions of other examples of frivolous, ridiculous spending that just makes my blood boil. Plus, if we weren't paying for absolutely absurd things like this, how much more would there be for things like libraries (on a local level). Would there really be a question of if we can afford roads (which is something the federal government is actually supposed to take care of) if we weren't spending our money on things the FEDERAL goverment has no business being involved in?

[Nestof3]

. . . the way his voting record was stated "voted in favor of partial birth abortion" are loaded. I think that was what Phred was trying to correct.

 

Even if the OP had said "voted not to ban partial birth abortion" that would have been more accurate and less politically loaded.

 

I'm confused -- it's either vote to allow the procedure or vote to not allow it -- there are only two sides of it. Which side does he fall on? How is this politically loaded?

[Nestof3]

From a national perspective though, there are PLENTY of things that don't have to be covered. I'm only using this reference because it is the one that sticks in my brain right now, but how about the $40 million for the woodstock museum? . . .

 

I agree.

 

if we weren't spending our money on things the FEDERAL goverment has no business being involved in?

 

I agree again -- education is one of these. That's one of the reasons I do not support Bush.

 

As my husband and I always say -- it's easier to spend someone else's money.

[Melinda in VT]

I'm confused -- it's either vote to allow the procedure or vote to not allow it -- there are only two sides of it. Which side does he fall on? How is this politically loaded?

 

To me, being in favor of something means that you like it. I don't know anyone who is saying, "Don't you love partial birth abortions? Don't you wish we had more?"

 

I do, however, know people who think that in some terrible situations, partial birth abortion is the best course of action. And so they want to make sure that for those people, their doctor won't be thrown in jail for choosing the option he or she feels is medically best in their circumstances.

 

To me, there is a big difference between the two.

[Phred]

Actually, it may come as a surprise to you, but there are people for whom the preservation of unborn life is a deeply held conviction.

 

Some of us are not political by nature and we don't look at everything as left or right.

Intact dilation and extraction really has nothing to do with the "preservation of unborn life". It's use was pioneered for the delivery of those babies whose heads were far to large to be able to make it through the birth canal. They're not going to live, they have no brain material. It's horribly sad and not something that should be legislated.

[Nestof3]

Would there really be a question of if we can afford roads (which is something the federal government is actually supposed to take care of) if we weren't spending our money on things the FEDERAL goverment has no business being involved in?

 

Here's another example of unnecesary spending:

 

The USDA provides at least 15 to 20 percent of the food served as part of school lunches. The rest is purchased commercially, with reimbursements from the USDA. Meals provided to students for free or at a reduced price are reimbursed at a higher rate.

 

To continue receiving subsidies, schools are required to provide milk and other nutritional, yet pricey, items. But the money doesn't cover all expenses, which forces school districts to get creative to recoup costs.

 

At least 100 school districts across the country raised lunch rates in April, up from 40 during the same month last year, Peterson said. The average is 15 to 20 cents per meal, though some have increased as much as 50 cents, he said.

 

In South Hampton Roads, the price of a school lunch ranges from 85 cents to $1.80, depending on grade level and school division.

 

Note: Reduced rate lunches will have no increase -- they will stay at 30 cents.

 

Why does the federal gov't get involved in city schools' lunches? Why not just create a cafeteria like any private enterprise would. The child could either bring a bagged lunch or buy the lunch in the cafeteria. Why are tax dollars going to this? I actually saw people complaining about the cost of the lunches!

 

Oh, BTW -- when our oldest was living with his mom, my husband found out that he was on the reduced price lunch program. He went in and tried to pay for his lunch program, but they would not allow it.