I just watched the Obama-McCain Saddleback Forum and......... - MOO! - ChicoEsquela's Blog - Bakersfield.com

Aug 16, 2008 at 07:08 PM : I sure called this one...

I sure called this one wrong!

Sure the $5 mil comment and a couple others will be made into Dem campaign ads but over all, McCain saw the stitches on that fastball and put it over left center.............

Aug 16, 2008 at 07:08 PM : I think that Obama...

I think that Obama showed himself to be much more nuanced than McCain. Now you may not like that in a leader, but when it comes to complex issues with complicated impacts, I'd like my leader to not believe the world is black-and-white, and not every tool is a hammer.

Aug 16, 2008 at 08:08 PM : McCain did quite well....

McCain did quite well.

Obama still has to find a way to overcone the Bradley Factor.

Aug 16, 2008 at 08:08 PM : I don't think an...

I don't think an answer filled with uh's and pauses is nuanced.

Aug 16, 2008 at 08:08 PM : I'm quite sure...

I'm quite sure McCain doesn't view every problem as a nail Mat

Aug 16, 2008 at 08:08 PM : snicker

*snicker*

Aug 16, 2008 at 09:08 PM : I watched, although I...

I watched, although I am not sure why some evangelical minister now qualifies as some high and mighty moderator for the American political process, and both candidates answered questions to the best of their abilities what the religious find pertinent these days. When does life begin? How do you define marriage? Who are your closest advisers? What mistakes have you made that you'll own up to?

I was underwhelmed by the whole affair. If this is what passes as political discourse these days who cares who wins. I guess I missed the health care questions. The questions on how to stimulate job growth in the private sector must have been replaced with a litany of questions concerning faith based subsidy needs and non-profit tax benefits.

When did running for President require a religious litmus test? The Puritans would be darned proud to know how much influence hell fire and brimstone still muster in the New World order of the 21st century. Tonight's nationally televised demonstration confirms that this nation is still searching for an Age of Enlightenment.

Aug 17, 2008 at 01:08 AM : I read the transcripts...

I read the transcripts and I thought both candidates had pretty good answers. I do think Senator McCain sort of missed the boat on the question that was something like,

"If you are wealthy, how much money do you make in a year? Give us a figure."

First of all, he didn't give Pastor Rick a chance to ask the question before he launched into an answer. Then, when he did answer, he didn't give a figure. He started saying things about, "Well, in some places if you have a house and a car and a job, you're considered rich." But that wasn't the question. I kept thinking, ahhh, come onnnnnn. Give us a figure, Senator. I would admit that it was a pretty tough question to answer for a Republican.

The other thing that REALLY caught my attention was the question about intervention in Georgia. It's been pointed out by several news agencies that Senator McCain's comments on Georgia were not spontaneous, but came almost word-for-word from Wikipedia's entry on the country of Georgia.

Having been a contributor on Wikipedia for three years, I'd say it's pretty risky to to get your foreign policy knowledge from Wikipedia. Senator McCain used the same comments he got from Wikipedia to answer this question from Pastor Rick. I'd don't think the Senator's answer was bad. It just doesn't strike me as being something the potential leader of the free world should do. Wikipedia is written by volunteers from all over the world and there is definitely bias as well as bad, wrong and even idiotic information given on individual topics. I saw the entry and compared it with Senator McCain's in it was almost dead-on the same words.

Other than that, I think the forum was civil. There's no doubt about it. When these guys were asked about their moral failings, they dug deep and spilled the beans on themselves. I was impressed with both of them. On the definition of marriage, I thought both of their answers were very wobbly, ill constructed and shaky. They could both do a lot better. Obama's answer about which Supreme Court Justice he would not have picked was a whole lot better than McCain's, in my opinion. Obama was most gracious about the conservative justices and McCain was just point blank lining up liberal justices for the firing squad. Not a very thoughtful response. It was all emotion, no substance.

Aug 17, 2008 at 07:08 AM : Skipped it.

Skipped it.

Aug 17, 2008 at 07:08 AM : Obama refused to...

Obama refused to answer a question because is "was above his pay grade". WOw. What does he think he is running for, neighborhood watch commander???

Aug 17, 2008 at 08:08 AM : I'm quite sure...

I'm quite sure McCain doesn't view every problem as a nail Mat

In fact, most problems he doesn't recognize as problems at all.

Aug 17, 2008 at 08:08 AM : Wow, HM--from what you...

Wow, HM--from what you described, it sounded like a pretty interesting Q & A. Sorry I missed it.

Weeelll, not that sorry. I'm at a really interesting part of my book right now. Hubby watched Batman Begins and I read "Jane and the Man of the Cloth." It's a mystery novel set in Regency times, with Jane Austen as the heroine. Yeah, it's cheese, but a really good cheese, like Munster.

Anyone know where can I see the transcripts?

Aug 17, 2008 at 08:08 AM : Adam I wish we could...

Adam

I wish we could take religion completely out of politics. It won't happen though because some people need to be told by their spiritual leaders how to vote. Lazy, uninformed, fearful people.

Aug 17, 2008 at 08:08 AM : Cat Your cheese is...

Cat

Your cheese is better quality than my cheese. Ahem, Big Brother. My secret shame.

Aug 17, 2008 at 08:08 AM : Surprisingly, I...

Surprisingly, I thought McCain did a pretty good job. He seemed to feel the most comfortable and did the better job of answering the questions. Obama needs to step his game up and not let McCain gain any momentum.

Aug 17, 2008 at 08:08 AM : McBush benefits from...

McBush benefits from the same "soft bigotry of low expectations" that Shrub enjoyed. The amazing thing about the tap-dancing elephant is *NOT* how well it dances.

Aug 17, 2008 at 09:08 AM : This kinda reminds me...

This kinda reminds me of that old Hymn where they sing: Gimme that old time religion, it's good enough for me!

Aug 17, 2008 at 09:08 AM : jfrancais: "Surp...

jfrancais: "Surprisingly, I thought McCain did a pretty good job. He seemed to feel the most comfortable and did the better job of answering the questions. Obama needs to step his game up and not let McCain gain any momentum."

McCain sounded good, until you actually thought about his answers. Anybody earning less than $5 million a year is "middle class"? It is acceptable for religious groups to receive federal funds and descriminate against people (based on religion, or any other reason)? He wouldn't confirm Supreme Court justices that he voted to confirm? He would "defeat" "evil" (who gets to decide what "evil" is, and what can be used to "defeat" it)? He may have said what the crowd wanted to hear, but not every voter thinks like the people in the audience.

Aug 17, 2008 at 09:08 AM : McBush gave his...

McBush gave his standard campaign stump speech to a room crowded with his supporters. Has he ever drawn that many before? That's why Obama turned down the "town-hall" sideshows. McBush, on his own, can't draw nearly that many people, and they're *NOT* an unbiased crowd.

Aug 17, 2008 at 10:08 AM : Mattloch,...

Mattloch, I am guilty of RF's description of "soft bigotry".

Aug 17, 2008 at 10:08 AM : I missed the thing....

I missed the thing. Probably glued to Olympics. I have seen enough snippets to see that McCain was in his element, a fundamentalist audience monitored by a preacher. Put me in a gaggle of fundies and I'll be a hit, too if I say "life begins at conception."

The forum was discussed on Meet The Press without making much of an impression as far as issues are concerned. It has occurred to me that McCain may have shot himself in the foot. Yeah, he made a hit with fundies. He may also got himself associated with George. It's Bush's fundie religious agenda the helped get the country in the mess that it's in now.

Bottom line: I don't think it was either a forum or a political debate.

Aug 17, 2008 at 10:08 AM : McCain laughed and...

McCain laughed and even allowed immediately as to how people like yourself would jump upon his $5 mil comment while he was saying it (which was obviously meant to mean defining "rich" is like defining morality -- it lies in eyes of the beholder more times than not).

The only thing this proves is how knee-jerk our politics have become. He knew what the hard core Dems would do with it as soon as he said it. While maybe not the smartest thing to do in a campaign I think he may well have said it just to see the reaction (an obvious exaggeration to elicit a response much like his 100 year war comment). We will see what the Dems do with it but I suspect it will play like his 100 year commentt has. To people that actually think for themselves, it serves to show just how politically blinded and Pavlovian his opponents actually are.

Aug 17, 2008 at 10:08 AM : When Democrats have...

When Democrats have Joe Biden in as a running mate (if not Kaine) they will quickly find out what half-joking off the cuff remarks can do to a print version sound bite driven media campaign BTW........

Aug 17, 2008 at 01:08 PM : ...

McCain was a hit with the audience of fundamentalist evangelicals.

Like Bush etal, who pander for the religious vote, McCain wins the battle for the heart of fundies hands down.

That alone is reason enough to not elect McCain.

Watching McCain pander to the fundies was painful.

The last thing the country needs is another panderer.

The nation more than ever needs someone in charge with the brains to make intelligent decisions and the balls to marginalize special interests whether it be money grubbing corporations or religious factions looking to influence government.

Obama may have gained no points with the fundies but wins a few with those who are tired of government bending to the Moral Majority, Falwells, Haggards and other evangelistic charlatans for having the courage to stand before the enemy and be quietly reviled for his unpopular pro choice stance.

The question is, is the vote of the evangelical bloc a key, win-or-lose factor in the election of either candidate?

Sure, the evangelical vote may have decisively swung the election for Bush, but will it get McCain in office?

Aug 17, 2008 at 02:08 PM : Anyone know where can...

Anyone know where can I see the transcripts?

Pastor Rick & Kay Warren's Newsroom.

Aug 17, 2008 at 02:08 PM : NOt sure what religion...

NOt sure what religion has to do with jabbing a scissors in the back of a babys skull before pulling if from the womb in order to "save" the mother. Allowing an aborted fetus that survives the abortion to eventually die in a trash can is somehow a "religious issue", is beyond me. The Empty Suit can't even answer when he thinks a human has rights.. Is it when it has been thrown in the trash can?? Apparently not. Good grief Barrack, just say what you feel. A child in a womb doesn not have rights, even outside that womb, unless the mother allows the right to live... If the mother wants that child dead, and it survives the procedure, it still has no right to live. That is not above your pay grade Empty Suit. You voted for this....

Aug 17, 2008 at 02:08 PM : Some of the...

Some of the conservative commentary of the forum rang true for me. What they said was that McCain actually avoided being personal and did the opposite of what Pastor Rick asked (Don't use your stump speech). Senator McCain did anyway, including his frequently told story of his encounter with a Vietnamese guard who was a Christian (a touching story of merciful goodness, by the way) while he was a prisoner of war. But that was pure stump, and commentators said that Obama really had the edge because he "participated in a personal conversation" with Christians and McCain did a stump speech "in a town hall meeting."

You know, that's what I got from the transcripts, too. Obama was talking to THOSE people in Pastor Rick's church and I could sense it even from reading it instead of seeing it. It make me think back to my days as a Christian and remember how empowering it was to hear another Christian get specific on how they struggled and had doubts over an issue that was at odds with their faith and how they arrived at the position they finally took. Of the two, Obama just plain blew me away when he specifically responded to that very delimma Pastor Rick posed. I didn't think Senator McCain seemed very comfortable talking about his religious faith but Obama was as warm and comfortable with his as any Christian I ever knew.

I thought of our fellow blogger, Katetak, as I read this transcript. It was only yesterday he was so distraught over, seemingly, not hearing anyone speak to the issue of genocide and persecution of Christians and he was pointing the finger at Senator Obama because of it. Well, it was Obama who went into great depth describing all his frustration with exactly what Katetak was talking about and what Senator McCain barely touched on. I hoped Katetak saw the forum. I couldn't say he'd be satisfied, but at least he'd know that Senator Obama has the same frustrations on the issue as so many Americans do.

Aug 17, 2008 at 03:08 PM : NOt sure...

I figured someone would post an extreme distortion of Obama's or McCain's comments and, thanks to RonMexico, my prediction was correct. Makes me wonder if he even saw the program. It is so absurd that either one of these candidates would support the scenario you describe, it simply take my breath away. You clearly haven't listened to either candidate's view on abortion. What do you gain by this kind of distortion?

Aug 17, 2008 at 03:08 PM : What do you gain by...

What do you gain by this kind of distortion?

It bolsters his otherwise empty argument, Ray, and the emotional content helps disguise the fact that they're lying.

Notice the "quote marks" around the word "save." The woman's life is *ALWAYS* at least secondary if not further down the list to the anti-abortion crowd.

Aug 17, 2008 at 04:08 PM : That's what...

That's what bothered me, Random. If you have a wife, sisters, female children, aunts, or females friends, what make their life less important than the fetus growing in their body?

I've done genealogy research for 37 years and one thing you notice is the HUGE number of women who died in child birth. It was the #1 cause of death of women below the age of 40 in this country well up into the middle of the 20th century. In 98 per cent of the cases both the female and the fetus died. So, with abortion an issue, what makes the fetus the top priority? If a woman already has children, what's to become of those children when the mother sacrifices her life for the sake of what is mostly likely a child who is so sickly, s/he will probably not live anywhere near the life expectancy of healthy children. What does RonMexico want - a house full of children with no mother and and one of the children constantly prone to a multitude of health problems, or a home with a mother taking care of healthy children?

I can tell you what my choice would be. I'd opt to save the mother's life every time. Let RonMexico sacrifice his female relatives if he wants. But I hope he then vows to take responsibility for all the motherless children and the sickly child that is left over. It's just plain common sense that you don't sacrifice the entire family's welfare by giving a mother the death sentence in a pregnancy that has gone wrong.

Aug 17, 2008 at 04:08 PM : FWIW, ronmexico was...

FWIW, ronmexico was refering, I think, to this.

"Newly obtained documents prove that in 2003, Barack Obama, as chairman of an Illinois state Senate committee, voted down a bill to protect live-born survivors of abortion — even after the panel had amended the bill to contain verbatim language, copied from a federal bill passed by Congress without objection in 2002, explicitly foreclosing any impact on abortion. Obama's legislative actions in 2003 — denying effective protection even to babies born alive during abortions — were contrary to the position taken on the same language by even the most liberal members of Congress..."

So, in effect, he supports killing babies that survive a "botched" abortion. But, you could argue that that is just as well because baby momma obviously don't want her.

Aug 17, 2008 at 04:08 PM : One area where I...

One area where I strongly agreed during this sit down discussion was when Pastor Rick Warren called for a more civil discussion of issues in the public marketplace of ideas. There is no place in any discussion for demonizing an issue, or the people who hold a point of view regarding the issue. I know it sounds great on talk radio to bandy about slurs targeting specific interest groups, or on the blogs punching in keystrokes to do the very same thing in an effort to draw out gullible suckers and play the name game, but it solves nothing and only alienates people from one another where no solution is attainable.

I'm not sure what RonMexico's rant is about other than to mischaracterize the question posed to Barack Obama and demonize people who believe in a woman's right to medical privacy and choice under the law. Barack Obama's response that he did not feel qualified to answer definitively when life begins seemed very reasonable to me. Given the startling numbers of people incarcerated in this country and the crying need for additional foster care for thrown away kids it seems counter productive to stigmatize half of our population over a matter of choices regarding birth control.

Aug 17, 2008 at 04:08 PM : Clearly Obama...

Clearly Obama doesn't support killing babies and that's what is so distorted and extreme about both RonMexico's view and this National Review distortion. Obama actually **supported** the federal version of the bill passed by congress, but Illinois stripped the language from the federal bill for political reasons (to deliberately undermine Roe vs. Wade) and Obama voted against **undermining Roe vs. Wade** which is a far cry from **voting to kill babies**. It's just distortion of Obama's true beliefs and practically everyone knows that but some people simply want to distort Obama's views for to serve a political purpose. The purpose? Well, seeing as how the difference between Obama and McCain's view on abortion are virtually indistinguishable, the only purpose served is that Republican want John McCain in the White House, not for anything to do with abortion, but to keep the oil industry fat and happy.

We just went through eight years of having a President who ran on the same empty words on abortion that John McCain now uses and we have NO FEWER abortion now than when President Bush came into office. Obama at least has a plan on how to prevent abortion without the need for government to legislate control over a woman's body.

Aug 17, 2008 at 04:08 PM : Either I am totally...

Either I am totally sheltered or uninformed, but I've never heard of VIABLE babies being aborted when they can be delivered instead. It was my understanding that abortion clinics WON'T perform abortions after a certain number of weeks gestation. Maybe that's just here in California, I don't know. As for late-term abortions when the mother's life is at stake--that's ludicrous. Induced labor and ceserean are just as timely as abortion. Anyone that would perform a late-term abortion when the mother's life is at stake, when ceserean is just as fast as easy, would be exposing themselves to a huge liability. Again, ludicrous.

I guess abortion, for some people, is a just big, foggy mystery on par with Atlantis and dragons.

Aug 17, 2008 at 04:08 PM : No, dril, in effect he...

No, dril, in effect he opposed *THAT* bill, likely because he felt it was a smokescreen for the anti-woman brigade. He voted against in in Illinois, and did not vote for or against the federal version. Which *ALSO* was a smokescreen.

But let's face it, a late-term abortion is not going to result in a viable baby. It. Just. Isn't. And yes, "just as well" does indeed describe the situation.

Aug 17, 2008 at 04:08 PM : Either I am...

Either I am totally sheltered or uninformed, but I've never heard of VIABLE babies being aborted when they can be delivered instead.

They aren't. It's a smokescreen. The true intent is to make it just that much harder for women who need abortions to get them.

Anyone that would perform a late-term abortion when the mother's life is at stake, when ceserean is just as fast as easy, would be exposing themselves to a huge liability. Again, ludicrous.

Actually, no. The c-section is much more risky to the woman, even though the Supreme Court just made the safer procedure unavailable.

Aug 17, 2008 at 04:08 PM : Catherine, me either,...

Catherine, me either, so I'm as sheltered and uninformed as you. They must be talking about back-alley abortions, not those performed in a licensed clinic - a huge difference and something no legislation can control since it done by someone with a coat hanger who then tosses the baby in the nearest dumpster. It's just another attempt to muddle the difference between legal abortion and back alley murder.

Aug 17, 2008 at 05:08 PM : Interesting,...

Interesting, Random. All the women I've talked to that have had cesareans said it was no big deal. Even ones that have had both cesarean and regular delivery said cesarean was easier. It's the recovery, I guess, that's longer. Or maybe cesarean is RISKIER than regular delivery. You can't say it ain't faster, though. My first labor was 26 hours!

Aug 17, 2008 at 07:08 PM : Chico: "The...

Chico: "The only thing this proves is how knee-jerk our politics have become. He knew what the hard core Dems would do with it as soon as he said it. While maybe not the smartest thing to do in a campaign I think he may well have said it just to see the reaction (an obvious exaggeration to elicit a response much like his 100 year war comment). We will see what the Dems do with it but I suspect it will play like his 100 year commentt has. To people that actually think for themselves, it serves to show just how politically blinded and Pavlovian his opponents actually are."

So, you think he set "rich" at $5 million as a joke? To whom? The other 99.9% of Americans who aren't? Is this like Bush's "joke" about "his people" ("the 'haves', and the 'have mores'")? And you think his "100 year" comment was done, not because he believes it, but to elicit a reaction? He was either lying to get a reaction, or stupid for actually meaning it. Take your pick. Either you can't trust him, or he does not have a firm grasp of the situation on the ground. In either case, how that would not automatically disqualify him from the office of President is beyond me. Haven't you had enough of eight years of lying? What, you need another four of some bs artist and his corporate lobbyist lackeys screwing this country up even more? To what, spite Democrats? You sure have a "funny" way of showing love for your country, Chico.

Aug 17, 2008 at 07:08 PM : Hussein, by voting on...

Hussein, by voting on these bills, was in fact deciding when life begins. So that means that he was *LYING* last night with his "above my pay grade" answer. He seems to lack the balls to take a firm stand on any issue, but it's too late for the Dems to change now. They're stuck with him.

Aug 17, 2008 at 07:08 PM : "we have NO...

"we have NO FEWER abortion now than when President Bush came into office."

Do you have any links to back that up or are you just spouting the usual left-wing wacko lying, stinking, no proof providing, false talking points?

Here is a study that says abortions *DECREASED* during the Bush Presidency.

"• In 2005, 1.21 million abortions were performed, down from 1.31 million in 2000."

Aug 17, 2008 at 09:08 PM : See what happens when...

See what happens when you start getting contraceptions and *GOOD* information into teenagers' hands? Just wait'll Plan B kicks in. Which is good, because I believe they're back on the rise again.

Life began about 3 billion years ago.

Aug 18, 2008 at 03:08 AM : Interesting,...

Interesting, Random. All the women I've talked to that have had cesareans said it was no big deal.

I can't attest to having the procedure done on me but I've seen it done to my wife. It is a very big deal. She nearly died. A lot can go wrong in a caesarean. It's not just a matter of the doctor cutting the woman open and a baby popping out.

Aug 18, 2008 at 06:08 AM : I believe you,...

I believe you, jfrancais. When I was pregnant with my first child I worked in an office with about 15 women. Nearly every one shared her pregnancy and delivery stories, not to mention all my cousins, aunts, etc. Not a single one told me of any problems with c-sections. I also read the pregnancy bible "What to Expect When You're Expecting," and again, it made c-sections sound positively easy. I'm not sure if they were all trying to allay a nervous mother's fears or what, but as I have had two regular deliveries, I can't comment on personal experience. Here's some snippets from my book, though:

"Today, however, cesareans are nearly as safe as vaginal deliveries for the mother, and in difficult deliveries or where there's fetal distress, they are often the safest delivery mode for the baby. Even though it is technically considered major surgery, a cesarean carries relatively minor risks--closer to those of a tonsillectomy than of a gallbladder operation, for instance--that can generally be treated easily."

And cesareans ARE performed when there is distress in either the mother, the baby, or both:

"First of all, cesarean delivery has become an extremely quick and safe option [explaining the high rate of cesareansnowadays] and some reasons for cesarean are: :A fetal illness or abnormality that makes labor an vaginal delivery unacceptably risky or traumatic," "MAternal diabetes, in cases where preterm delivery is deemed necessary and it is found that the cervix is not ready for induction of labor," "Other maternal illness (including heart disease and respiratory disorders,)" "Placenta previa, since labor can cause such a placenta to detach prematurely, which could result in hemorrhage," Maternal hypertension or kidney disease, if it appears the mother may be unable to tolerate the stress of labor," "Preeclampsia or eclampsia that doesn't respond to treatment," or "Fetal or maternal distress, due to any cause."

Considering all that, WHY have a late-term abortion?

Aug 18, 2008 at 07:08 AM : ...

Abortion is the single most polarizing issue dividing people on both ends of the political spectrum.

Pro Life people become so angered that they demonize Pro Choice advocates and sometimes commit criminal acts like arson and even murder blowing up clinics, shooting doctors etc.

Democrats, of both conservative and liberal leanings are collectively branded evil murderers by Republicans presuming a moral authority over the godless heathens.

This divisive issue will be dominating politics for decades, perhaps even milleniums to come.

Aug 18, 2008 at 07:08 AM : Of course a cesarean...

Of course a cesarean is a serious procedure. Anytime you open the abdominal wall it's considered major surgery.

You're not going to extract that child with a laparoscopy.

I bet it would be considered a monumental deal if it were done on men.

Aug 18, 2008 at 07:08 AM : Why have late-term...

Why have late-term abortion? Because it's medically necessary and much easier on the woman than the alternative.

C-sections are "nearly as safe as vaginal deliveries"--which can kill or severely injure the mother.

Look, what the anti-abortion types *AREN'T* telling you is *WHY* intact D&E abortions--the latest of the late--are performed. Generally there are two reasons: fetal death, and hydrocephalus. Neither one is going to produce a viable baby. Both require the fetus to be removed. The safest way to do that for the woman is intact D&E. And the Supreme Court, in an almost Catholic display of misogyny, decided that their delicate sensibilities overrule the very real possibility of serious harm to the mother.

There are medical conditions which require removal of half a child's brain in order to save his/her life. It would be possible to demonize *THAT* medical procedure too, and kill some children who didn't have to die. Maybe I could even get the fundies to donate enough money so I wouldn't have to work anymore. I could just tell them lies crafted to stir their emotions, and they'd put me on the gravy train without asking any questions. Bless their little empty-headed souls.

Aug 18, 2008 at 07:08 AM : That's correct...

That's correct RF~ my friend delivered a baby that was according to all the tests, was good to go. One slight problem right before birth they did an ultrasound.She was blind,had six fingers,toes,cleft palate,and no brain covering. My friend gave birth,and in an act of "compassion" it took that baby a week to die of starvation and dehydration. That's how they kill those babies,unless the parents want them to live against doctors advice. What's the worst choice here?Late term abortion or a slow tortuous death?

This is the kind of thing that should be between a family and a doctor.

Aug 18, 2008 at 07:08 AM : Sage As cruel as that...

Sage

As cruel as that is, it's just as cruel to expect a woman to carry a dead baby until she spontaneously aborts.

I've never understood that.

Aug 18, 2008 at 07:08 AM : ronmexico: "Obama...

ronmexico: "Obama refused to answer a question because is "was above his pay grade". WOw. What does he think he is running for, neighborhood watch commander???"

Gee, you don't think he could possibly be talking about God, do you?

Oh, right, that would mean you actually thought about something.

Nevermind.

Aug 18, 2008 at 07:08 AM : Decades ago the State...

Decades ago the State of Oregon did a study with public participation "prioritizing" several hundred different types of medical care on two bases: How much did it cost? What was the likelihood of success?

Top of the list was giving antibiotics to people suffering from pneumonia. Dirt cheap (relatively speaking,) high chance of success and you avoided all kinds of more-expensive care options by acting quickly.

At the bottom of the list was life support for anencephalic babies. Hideously expensive, and no hope at all.

The bill Obama voted against in Illinois and declined to vote on in the Senate makes that kind of care mandatory.

Aug 18, 2008 at 07:08 AM : Chico: This...

Chico: This subject is too hot for me. It's one that guarantees that fiercely-held opinions will be shared and argued about but will never be settled as long as there are human beings on earth. That's the only reason I can't share my opinion. The name of our next President may hang on this question. That's how important it is.

Aug 18, 2008 at 08:08 AM : Maybe it just comes...

Maybe it just comes down to a difference in terminology. I had a friend that seemed to have a healthy pregnancy until about her sixth month. She became sick almost overnight and collapsed. The hospital told her she had preeclampsia and they needed to induce labor right then. She didn't argue. Her life, and the life of her much-anticipated and adored baby were on the line. The baby only survived a few hours. It was heartbreaking to the whole family. My friend, her doctors and her family referred to the experience as premature delivery. Would pro-lifers call it "late-term abortion?"

Aug 18, 2008 at 08:08 AM : Chico: ...

Chico: By-the-by, I agree with you about how wrong you were. (But that still doesn't address the hot-button issue of any-time abortions, upon which I shall not opine.)

Aug 18, 2008 at 08:08 AM : Cat, that...

Cat, that "difference in terminology" has me saying it's a "lifesaving medical procedure" and the people who don't understand the procedure calling it "murder."

The name of our next President may hang on this question.

And vice-versa.

Aug 18, 2008 at 08:08 AM : Carrying a dead baby...

Carrying a dead baby till delivery is unthinkable,at least to me Audrey.

I think what we can all agree on is that birth,life,death are all individual situations..that no "one" simple solution is right.

BTW~ after the death of my friends baby we did some research.It clearly takes a very special person to decide to let these children live,and some do. Again ,as was the case with keeping my son,the morality of that action was mine and my families to decide....no one else.

Aug 18, 2008 at 08:08 AM : Well put, as always,...

Well put, as always, Sage. : )

Aug 18, 2008 at 08:08 AM : Also, I think...

Also, I think the reason many pro-lifers make an exception for situations where the mother and/or baby's life is in jeopardy is because it falls under the "this baby was wanted, but..." pretext. If they didn't make this exception, every "preemie" baby that didn't survive would have to be classified as an abortion, and that's fightin' words to many.

I think another reason abortion is a hot-button issue is because it throws a lot of our long-cherished beliefs into disarray. When the world is in upheaval, when men are fighting and raping and pillaging, when no one in the whole world can be counted on to perpetuate the species instead of annihilate it, MOTHERS can still be counted on to suffer and scrape and claw to feed and protect their children. Mothers are sometimes the last defense against complete anarchy. I'm getting images of Darfur and Somalia here.

When mothers are the annihilators, when mothers, not guerrillas fighters, are the ones turning their backs on the perpetuation of the species, I think some kind of inner instinct tells us the whole world has gone to HELL! If mothers can't be counted on, then what's left? That's why you get outraged screams from some people over abortion, and yawns and shrugs from the same people over the latest deadly gun battle in the hood. It's the inner city "guerrilla fighters" that no one seems to want to change the constitution over, but mothers? Hell yeah!

Aug 18, 2008 at 08:08 AM : In other words,...

In other words, we're applying ingrained habits which developed during a time when most children died anyway before reproducing, to a very different situation today when our greatest danger is too many of us all on one planet. But that's what you get when your reflexes were evolved a million years ago, and your rulebook is two thousand years out of date.

That's why *THINKING* is much more important to the survival of the species than reproducing.

Aug 18, 2008 at 08:08 AM : Some people...

Some people "think" with their hearts, Random, and vote that way, too.

I'm not saying it's right or wrong. It is what it is.

Aug 18, 2008 at 08:08 AM : ...

Let's strip away the runaway emotion from the issues of birth control and abortion for a moment and take an objective glance at some other aspects and questions surrounding the subject.

If those 1.2 or 1.3 million abortions per year had not been performed during the past 40 years we would have a directly proportionate number of millions more people in the country and billions more to come.

Add to that the number of babies that would have been procreated by those who wisely practiced proper birth control.

If all those babies had matured and had 1.2 children of their own by the age of 20 or so, millions more babies would have been created, therby propagating a mind boggling exponential increase in U.S. population similar to that of underdeveloped African and Asian countries that can no longer feed, clothe and otherwise administer to their vast populations created by ignorant parents who failed to practice birth control and had babies neither they nor society can support.

Selective procreation is increasingly more necessary to curb exponential population growth, whether it be abstinence or birth control. Abortion also plays a significant role in that overall equation.

Unfortunately, while developed nations better control their own population growth with these effective albeit unpopular measures, other large nations can't, don't or won't, and must deal with much uglier natural selection processes including death by disease, famine, war, genocide and other horrific causes.

If the fundies have their way with birth control and abortion, everyone would be encouraged to have a dozen or more kids as science finds ways to make them live increasingly longer and the planet would soon be in chaos.

When I look at those fly-ridden African kids in the television ads, I can't help but think of the ignorance of the parents who so irresponsibly created them.

When I see some of these large families of Christians numbering up to a dozen or more children, I wonder if they consider what kind of world we would have if everyone manufactured of babies an automobile factory.

When I see pregnant 13, 14-year-old girls dropping out of school to become welfare mothers with fatherless babies, I wonder why they didn't have the sense to avoid the pregnancy with proper precoital protection or why they didn't terminate it early at the first sign prior to it becoming a viable life.

Is it because of inflammatory religious dogma demonizing people who practice birth control or seek pregnancy termination? Bad parenting?

Whatever it is, one thing is clear. Unfettered population growth in the long term will at some mathematical point suffocate the planet.

In the shorter term, uncontrolled population growth will create misery and pain for many.

Maybe instead of encouraging people to crank out litters of kids, we should be thinking about spay and neutering programs like we have for dogs and cats. Of course, that's inhumane, but it helps illustrate the need for responsible procreation.

Why is it that people feel so compelled to make more kids, anyway?

Is it out of selfishness?

Is it because they just want babies for their own enjoyment, like live versions of Barbie and Ken dolls?

Is there really a genetic mechanism compelling us to propagate the human race?

Is there not a genetic safeguard preventing extinction from overpopulation or is that a matter left to the brain to exercise?

Aug 18, 2008 at 09:08 AM : Newest Dem talking...

Newest Dem talking point re this: "McCain could actually hear some of Obama'a answers so he could shape his own......"

Dem Motto: "if your man gets beat, assume the other guy was cheating"

Aug 18, 2008 at 09:08 AM : "Is there...

"Is there really a genetic mechanism compelling us to propagate the human race?"

Yeah, and you seem to be lacking it. Not that there's anything wrong with that....

Aug 18, 2008 at 09:08 AM : If those 1.2...

Not so. Typically, those women undergoing abortions have those babies anyway--just at a later/more convenient time, or healthy babies as opposed to malformed ones.

Doubt we can ever strip away the overloaded emotional content. It's too valuable to the demogogues. Heavy emotions stop thought--and that's perfect when you're manipulating people.

Is there really a genetic mechanism compelling us to propagate the human race?

Of course there is. That's how we won out over the Neanderthal. We didn't out-think 'em, or out-fight 'em. We out f'ed 'em.

Aug 18, 2008 at 09:08 AM : ...

Yes, Catherine, I was shortchanged with the omission of a compelling procreation gene.

It's no biggie. I don't feel terrible about it.

But as a male in a civilized society, I have nothing to say about a woman's desire and freedom to procreate or not.

Unlike in some other underdeveloped countries where men have a say in a woman's pregnancy, along with other aspects of her life, here in civilized western society the decision to have babies is determined solely by the mother. Fathers have no voice in the decision.

Women don't need husbands or even male sex partners to achieve their procreational goals.

Many single women are buying anonymous sperm from banks to father their own progeny in order to avoid male interference in the birthing and rearing process.

Maybe men should have more say about it?

Just kidding.

Everyone knows that men are incapable of rational, humane thought on the matter.

Hell, if it was up to men, there'd probably be a million more abortions each year.

Aug 18, 2008 at 09:08 AM : Men always have a say,...

Men always have a say, Saber. A man's say ends where their zipper begins.

Aug 18, 2008 at 09:08 AM : Well said, sage....

Well said, sage.

RandomFactor, for what's it worth, I totally agree.

It's a little irritating how something as emotionally intimate as the decision to carry a baby can be so highly politized. I came of age in the early eighties - this issue has been part of national politics for as long as I have been socially conscious.

I think the evangelical Right - granting such a thing - would be a better witness to a wayward nation if they left the public scene and then returned only after the New Testament has been fully revisited.

--virgil

Aug 18, 2008 at 10:08 AM : ...

Yes, Sage, men like to get laid once in a while.

I hear that women like it. too.

Sometime women are doing the unzipping

But women don't need the physical presence of a man directly involved in their lives in order to have sexplay or babies.

One of my points is that women are solely responsible for the birth of children.

A man cannot force a woman to have either birth or abortion.

A woman, on the other hand, can use effective protection to avoid pregnancy. A woman can demand that a male sex partner use protection such as a condom.

However, condoms are not sure-fire protection against possible pregnancy, they are primarily designed to help prevent sexually transmitted diseases not as a birth control measure.

So, the protection against pregnancy also falls more on the heads of women than on men.

In the case of teen pregnancies, parents are often largely at fault for failing to acknowledge the young girl's sexual activity and failing to properly educate the child on proper birth control methods and equip the child for safe, baby-free sex.

I have friends who are presently in complete denial about their 13-year-old daughter's possible sexual behavior with her steady 15-year-old boyfriend of six months.

I've seen this common behavior in families often wherein the child is understandably reluctant to share experiences with parents whom she knows will become angry at the disclosure and punish the child with Draconian measures rather than resolving the issue intelligently and dispassionately.

"My daughter and I are very close, she would never lie to me," says the mother.

Yeah, sure.

"I'll beat her to a pulp and kill the boy," says the father.

The girl ends up pregnant, her parents raise their grandbaby while the girl dates a series of losers that beat her and struggles with drug and alcohol addiction and the baby grows up to become a Republican evangelist and visits his toothless tattooed mom in prison once a year or so.

Well, maybe it doesn't turn out quite that badly, but for all you parents out there who don't believe your 14-year-old daughter is most probably bonking her boyfriend, heaven help you, your child and the early grandbaby you might soon have.

Unless, of course, you find out about the pregnancy soon enough for an early term abortion.

Aug 18, 2008 at 10:08 AM : I was just being...

I was just being flippant, Saber. I'm not arguing with you on your points. I agree that too many idiots are congratulating themselves on having babies they cannot care for instead of having abortions and being baby murderers. I think the main reason behind this is that there really is no longer a stigma against stupid, unmarried 15-year-old girls having babies, but there is still a stigma against abortion. Whatever the path of least resistance is, you know. They'll worry about tomorrow (and the next 20 years) later.

However, implying that parents are somehow ruining the world because of world overpopulation just because YOU don't want kids and can't see beyond your own ego and admit that other people who don't think like you do may not, as a result, be WRONG, deserves a big *SMACK!* from my gentle, mothering hand.

Aug 18, 2008 at 10:08 AM : Huh? Did I mention...

Huh? Did I mention getting "laid"? I'm so confused.....

Aug 18, 2008 at 11:08 AM : Saber~ for...

Saber~ for the record:I did not mention getting "laid" at all. But to be clear,I am for it,given consenting adults.

Aug 18, 2008 at 11:08 AM : The more I see of...

The more I see of Obama the more I think he is really not that sharp.

Those who consider him "nuanced" with all the uhh's, ahhh's, and other pauses remind me of the movie "Being There"

"Intellectuals" are seeing what they want to see.........

Aug 18, 2008 at 11:08 AM : I really don't...

I really don't see NEITHER one of them pulling that 'magic rabbit out of their hat' and making all of our troubles go away in the 4 years that he/she is in office---not unless your Criss Angel...but whom ever wins this race..why in the 'heck' do they want a job that pays LESS than a Medical Doctor?

Aug 18, 2008 at 11:08 AM : I agree Ling~ and we...

I agree Ling~ and we still have sooo looong to go. Whoever gets in has a row to hoe,that is for sure.

Aug 18, 2008 at 11:08 AM : Chico: ...

Chico: He's really good at pursing his lips, staring off into the distance (peculiarly, toward the right), chin up, as though envisioning a future as King. But he has absolutely perfected Ummm, Uhhhhh, etc. Maybe that's a good thing, though. "There's many a slip 'twixt the cup and the lip." And while I know my comment will resonate with few on this thread, that's okay. I'm not running for anything. (Maybe my life, later.)

Aug 18, 2008 at 11:08 AM : So whom-ever...

So whom-ever WINS...Good Luck...WE still have a Congress that still can't find their BUTTS with both hands....(as I drift off and think of my friends years ago at Tuns Taveren when they were called upon)

Aug 18, 2008 at 11:08 AM : "He's...

"He's really good at pursing his lips, staring off into the distance (peculiarly, toward the right), chin up, as though envisioning a future as King."

If that future ever actually comes to pass, what he'll be seeing when he stares off into the distance is a huge banner. It'll read "THE KING IS A FINK!"

Aug 18, 2008 at 11:08 AM : "Intellectual...

"Intellectuals" are seeing what they want to see.........

So, sadly, are you.

Aug 18, 2008 at 11:08 AM : I agree,...

I agree, Ling. Neither candidate, no matter how hard they try, is going to be able to "fix" everything during their presidency.

Aug 18, 2008 at 11:08 AM : We all see what we...

We all see what we see,and no one here by debate or offensive slurs will change one mind.

All I know is whoever gets "in" I will stand behind them, hoping to improve my country,until they prove otherwise. Unfortunatly that can be said of very few Americans.

Aug 18, 2008 at 12:08 PM : I completely...

I completely agree, Sage. The two candidates want to achieve the same results for the country, just with different methods. I think they both want the best for our country. Too bad we can't have a co-presidency. Obama and McCain can situate their desks on opposite ends of the Oval Office, and have to agree or shoot spit balls at each other.

Aug 18, 2008 at 12:08 PM : tonyh: Or...

tonyh: Or something similar.

Aug 18, 2008 at 12:08 PM : Even though it is...

Even though it is technically considered major surgery, a cesarean carries relatively minor risks--closer to those of a tonsillectomy than of a gallbladder operation, for instance--that can generally be treated easily

My wife has had her gallbladder removed and had two c-sections. Her experience is closer to that than a tonsillectomy. I also saw the doctor tugging and pulling trying to get my son dislodged (from her ribs, I guess). I also saw the cutting and the tools used to separate the abdominal wall. You also have to have an attentive anesthesiologist to monitor the patient (my wife was given too much anesthetic due to her high tolerance which caused her to temporarly lose function of her arms) . The major surgery part is by no means just a technicality. C-sections are very serious business.

Aug 18, 2008 at 12:08 PM : Elective c-sections...

Elective c-sections increase the maternal risk of death threefold over vaginal birth, and increase the risk to the infant as well. Of course in these cases we're not technically talking about elective surgery--unless it's being done because someone *OTHER* than the mother or doctor said that intact d&e was not doable.

The risk of dying from a c-section is *MUCH* higher than tonsillectomy. About ten thousand times higher.

Aug 18, 2008 at 01:08 PM : When the decision...

When the decision comes for many whether to abort or carry to full term, I wonder how many decide to carry and then look down at their infants head and thought but that for that split second decision, you would be a small pile of waste tossed in a trash can.

I wonder how many fathers look at their sons and marveled that they ever could have wished them down a drain.

I know of couples or parents who made that decision to carry and later you'd have thought they invented successful pregnancies. I was accused on here of my anti abortion stance being a religious one and I vehemently disagree. Every infant I see and hold is a gift. A gift of life, a gift of continuity. I will sit and make stupid noises and faces just to get a smile or a giggle and so the thought of that not happening is an impossible one for me.

I don't care that some here will remind me of the broken children and the lost children..I get it. But when as abortion is performed because a pregnancy is too early in their married or teen life or inconvenient...that's just wrong and I don't care who disagrees with me. It is NOT our choice to end that fetus's life.

When I heard McCain say that life begins at conception I was standing in a hotel room and I applauded.

Aug 18, 2008 at 01:08 PM : And for the record, if...

And for the record, if anyone thought Obama was talking about a higher power when he said it was above his pay grade needs to read up on Solomon.

Aug 18, 2008 at 01:08 PM : The five million dolor...

The five million dolor remark was a joke, he even said something like"seriously, I know that statement will be distorted, but seriously lets talk about this". His point was that he doesn't care what figure is considered rich he doesn't wan to raise taxes on any one.

And he did define rich in the beginning he said it was having a home, a family, and giving more to your children than you have. He said it was ridiculous to think that a small business owner working 16 hour days, and employing others, helping our economy should not be taxed as if they are "rich". I don't see how anyone could disagree with that.

Note, that Obama said "well selling 25 million books make you rich..." that was obviously a joke and so was McCain's.

Aug 18, 2008 at 01:08 PM : The five million dolor...

The five million dolor remark was a joke,

I knew that. In his social circles you need ten million dollars and at least three houses just to be on his Christmas Card list--and $20 million makes you middle class.

Aug 18, 2008 at 02:08 PM : It is interesting how...

It is interesting how some of the Obama supporters on this thread did their best to delflect from its original subject... the performance of the two candidates at the forum.

McCain was obviously the sharper of the two. His answers were concise, definitive, and left little doubt where he stood on the issues being discussed.

Obama, on the other hand, did his usual waffling, giving vague substanceless answers, trying to appeal to the low IQ crowd who would rather emote than actually think.

I was recently on a forum where an ardernt Obama supporter who lives in NORWAY was talking about how disappointed he was because it was clear, even to the Norwegian press, who dominated in that matchup.

Aug 18, 2008 at 02:08 PM : First of all, it WAS...

First of all, it *WAS* a forum, and not a "debate."

McBush was not the sharper of the two--he was the one who had a prepared speech.

Obama went before a conservative, Christian audience and made the case for being pro-choice. He disproved the "Muslim" crap. He even bantered with the minister. McBush's supporters desperately want this to be a "win" for him to deflect from his awful performances of late. We'll see what the two look like head-to-head, before a *NEUTRAL* audience and not one made up of McBushies.

Aug 18, 2008 at 02:08 PM : I believe you,...

I believe you, jfrancais. We all have different experiences. Believe me, if your wife had been one of the women I had talked to about c-sections when I was pregnant with my first child, I would have been shaking in my boots. There WAS the possiblilty of needing a c-section in my case because of placentia previa, but it improved before I went into labor.

Anyway, my whole point of bringing it up was that I felt, in cases where the mother or the baby is in distress, induced labor and/or c-section are preferrable to late-term abortion. If you don't agree, that's okay.

Aug 18, 2008 at 03:08 PM : Is that why Obama is...

Is that why Obama is the one holding the no. of real debates down to only 3 while McCain wants more?

Aug 18, 2008 at 03:08 PM : McBush wants...

McBush wants "town-hall" style affairs packed with his supporters. Obama's the front-runner. He doesn't *HAVE* to give McBush anything.

Aug 18, 2008 at 03:08 PM : Cat You made some...

Cat

You made some compelling arguments. Two things that stand out.

One. Men hold life dear while that life is in a woman's womb and they are not troubled (at all) by it's gestation. .

On the other hand, men have no problem waging war and slaughtering that same life in an act of national aggression for gain, ideology or supremacy.

Two If it's murder to abort a fetus when a woman decides to end the pregnancy, isn't it also murder to abort a fetus because it threatens the mother's life.

Let's say in the first case that the mother has children at home who don't have the basic necessities to sustain life, then she becomes pregnant with a child whose birth will increase the strain on the existing children (perhaps resulting in their deaths). Do we just let the birth happen and leave the results to God?

In the second case, a woman is told that she will die if she continues a pregnancy. Do we let the pregnancy continue and leave the results to God? Even if the life of the mother and the fetus will most certainly end before birth takes place.

Aug 18, 2008 at 03:08 PM : Or we could argue...

Or we could argue whether c-sections are risky and whether the world is overpopulated. ; )

Aug 18, 2008 at 03:08 PM : "Obama...

"Obama refused to answer a question because is "was above his pay grade". WOw. What does he think he is running for, neighborhood watch commander???"

You think Obama is bad? You should hear what the Pope says about it: From the very lips of of the Pope/Ratziner:

"The Magisterium has not expressly committed itself to an affirmation of a philosophical nature [as to the time of ensoulment], but it constantly affirms the moral condemnation of any kind of procured abortion."

[*Magisterium: The task of interpreting the Word of God authentically has been entrusted solely to the Magisterium of the Church, that is, to the Pope and to the bishops in communion with him.]

Apparently God's representative on earth also doesn't hold the pay grade, either. If history is the teacher, the Magisterium might get around to defining when life begins in a couple of centuries, sort of like when they finally understood the sun didn't rotate around the earth and that natural selection was a fact. But then you can always ask the Mormons. They have the pay grade and they'll tell you that souls are alive and waiting for parents to get together so they can come into the world. What do the Mormons know that the Pope doesn't?

Aug 18, 2008 at 03:08 PM : The Scientologists...

The Scientologists also share that belief, along with a screwy kind of reincarnation. (Or, in the Ozarks, reintarnation.)

Once more, life began either 2 billion or just over 6000 years ago, depending on your favorite method of answering such questions. It does *NOT* begin at conception.

As for "ensoulment," I believe that's when you learn to dance.

Aug 18, 2008 at 03:08 PM : "Apparently...

"Apparently God's representative on earth also doesn't hold the pay grade, either."

Obama wants to wield power a million times greater than anything the Pope can imagine. NOTHING is above the President's pay grade.

Obama is obviously not up to the task.

Aug 18, 2008 at 04:08 PM : And for the record, if...

And for the record, if anyone thought Obama was talking about a higher power when he said it was above his pay grade needs to read up on Solomon.

The question from Pastor Rick was:

Q: AT WHAT POINT DOES A BABY GET HUMAN RIGHTS IN YOUR VIEW?

A:  WELL, I THINK THAT WHETHER YOU ARE LOOKING AT IT FROM A THEOLOGICAL PERSPECTIVE OR A SCIENTIFIC PERSPECTIVE, ANSWERING THAT QUESTION WITH SPECIFICITY, YOU KNOW, IS ABOVE MY PAY GRADE.

The assumption of Obama's critics is that a president should always reduce complex issues to simple black and white truisms, unfounded in reality. That's why they supported Bush. And that's why they're supporting McCain.  If Pastor Rick's question were rendered into a direct question, rather than a metaphor, the question would be, "When does life begin?"   If Obama's answer were rendered into a direct answer rather than a metaphor, it would be rendered, "I don't know." Which is exactly what the Pope (Ratzinger) says.

Aug 18, 2008 at 04:08 PM : Random. I like the...

Random. I like the explanation from the cracker thief's tribe. When asked, "When does life begin?" someone said, "two billion years ago."

Spam code: US XXX (LOL)

Aug 18, 2008 at 04:08 PM : Something that Obama...

Something that Obama said bothered me right when he said it, though.

He mentioned Mathew and talked about how we treat "the least among us...."

Who would better fit that definition than the "unborn"??

Aug 18, 2008 at 04:08 PM : On THIS planet, at...

On *THIS* planet, at least.

I hadn't heard Warren's question before. It was phrased better than I expected--most people *DO* try to reduce it to "when does life begin," in which case the 2GY answer is correct.

To answer the question he *DID* ask, the correct answer is "at birth," for some of them, "at 18 years" for others, "at 21 years" for still others, and "never" for many. Although under the marvelous compromise that is Roe v. Wade, government reserves the right to set certain conditions on abortion depending on arbitrary time scales.

(By the way, if I seem to be making more typoes than usual, that's because I'm typing with a @()*%* wrist brace on.)

Aug 18, 2008 at 04:08 PM : Gee, Chico, I'd...

Gee, Chico, I'd have to say "poor and powerless folks who have already been born." That "among us" part, you know.

Aug 18, 2008 at 04:08 PM : So out of sight out of...

So out of sight out of mind, eh RF?

BTW, did you do a Cyndy McCaine on your wrist?

Aug 18, 2008 at 04:08 PM : Obama wants...

Obama wants to wield power a million times greater than anything the Pope can imagine. NOTHING is above the President's pay grade.

So President Bush and candidate McCain for certain know when life begins? The most famous "C" student in Yale history and the guy who ranked 844th in a class of 880 at the academy? They know?

Aug 18, 2008 at 04:08 PM : Naw, I'm not...

Naw, I'm not *THAT* delicate a flower. Hospital visit for a handshake? Good thing they've got good federal, single-payer insurance I was moving a crate out of the storeroom and aggravated an old injury.

"Out of sight, out of mind" isn't what I had in mind. More like "in a foreign territory where my influence, no matter how much I might want it to, does not apply." After birth they become citizens with rights. Or at least residents with rights.

Aug 18, 2008 at 04:08 PM : Obama has no illusions...

Obama has no illusions that he's god. Not so the other two you mentioned.

Spam code ADDEU. As in "probably time I gave the sprained wrist a wrest."

Aug 18, 2008 at 04:08 PM : They very well could...

They very well could HM.

I don't think academics have any particular purchase on "the truth" (when it comes to philosophies at any rate) as oposed to the "common man".....................

Do you?

Aug 18, 2008 at 04:08 PM : The egg is alive...

The egg is alive before conception. Therefore life does not begin at that point. QED.

Aug 18, 2008 at 04:08 PM : Why does B.O. refuse...

Why does B.O. refuse more 1-on-1 debates with McCain? No particular reason, unless you factor in fear.

Aug 18, 2008 at 04:08 PM : I just read something...

I just read something that scared the crap out of me. McCain is taking Ambien to sleep. We could actually potentially have a president with access to nukes that could do things in the middle of the night and have no memory of them. I knew someone that baked a cake, frosted it, ate some all in the middle of the night and had no Idea, until seeing the mess the next morning. If McCain taking Ambien doesn't scare you, well, good luck. Would he be ready for that 3am call? Um, not that he would remember.

http://abcnews.go.com/Health/Politics/Story?id=4919842&page=1

Aug 18, 2008 at 05:08 PM : Lets see,the...

Lets see,the conventions are over ,what? the 4th of September. We have 4 debates,they do a little thing called cross country campaigning and we vote in November.Fear of collapse maybe.

Aug 18, 2008 at 05:08 PM : I think it's a...

I think it's a question a jet jock isn't likely to study at any of the service academies, true, Chico. They are about winning fights, as they should be. It's not beyond the ability of common people to inquire into the subject, but religion doesn't inform beyond moral boundaries. Science at least can say what is observable and most people can tell when a politician is simply pandering to exploit religious sentiment.

What Senator McCain's and President Bush's understanding clearly entails is a kind of black/while cutoff line that is defined as "the moment of conception." But look what science actually says. It's not an instantaneous moment when when sperm meets egg. It's something with a "ragged edge", as Steven Pinker says.

Pinker says:

"Just as a microscope reveals that a straight edge is really ragged, research on human reproduction shows that the 'moment of conception' is not a moment at all. Sometimes several sperm penetrate the outer membrane of the egg, and it takes time for the egg to eject the extra chromosomes ... Even when a single sperm enters, its genes remain separate from those of the egg for a day or more, and it takes yet another day or so for the newly merged genome to control the cell. So the 'moment' of conception is in fact a span of twenty-four to forty-eight hours."

What Bush and McCain consistently project as a worldview is that everything is black or white and that gray does not exists. Doesn't matter if its about the enemies of the state or when human life begins. To me, that translates into a kind of leadership has doesn't weigh decisions carefully. It's, as Random suggest, that these guys have something of a "god" complex in their approach to problems. I think that's very disturbing but, worse, I just don't think either Bush or McCain are all that concerned with religious issues beyond getting elected. Look at Bush's record on faith-based initiatives. It was a no-show. McCain's interaction with religion is marginal at best. His most active role with religion is hanging out with religious multi-millionaires and pastors of mega churches, showing up once in a while to get a check and patting them on the back. Even his "cross in the dirt" story is suspect since with was something like 25 years AFTER the fact that it even started showing up in his commentary. Somebody today noted the remarkable similarity of that story to the story Solginetzen told in The Gulag Archipelago". People are now wondering, since McCain actually wrote stories years ago about his Christmases as a POW - stories that made NO mention of the cross in the dirt - just where the "cross in the dirt" story came from. Well, it first showed up when McCain worked with an author in the mid-1990s and that was, what? 25 years after his Vietnam experiences and well after "The Gulag Archipelago".

So McCain's faith seems disingenuous, a political expediency rather than an every day experience. Or about as real as Bill Clinton's personal relationship with Jesus, something that only exists during the election cycle. Moral certainty during an election cycle is not a replacement for scientific truth. Indeed, it should always be regarded as a big red flag when a politician exploits that option. I just find it a whole lot more honest of Obama to say "I don't know". Anyone who has engaged in the "examined life" that is so highly regarded by Christians knows that "I don't know" or "I have to struggle with my doubts" is the far more human experience than the black and white profile McCain painted in that forum. How easily those Baptist forget their own experience.

Aug 18, 2008 at 05:08 PM : McBush has now...

McBush has now persuaded someone to back him up on his "cross in the dirt" fairy tale. If only the guy weren't a money-runner for the convicted bribery expert Jack Abramoff, whom McBush covered for in the Senate. Think the guy might owe old McBush a favor or two?

Oh, and the guy's name is Swindle. You can't make this up, folks.

Aug 18, 2008 at 06:08 PM : Whoa! The...

Whoa! The Free Republic hammers McCain on the cross in the dirt story. That's the equal of the Pope b*tch-slapping Jesus through the nine circles of hell.

Looks like the tide just turned. Now the REPUBLICANS are turning up with doubts about the story and even the whole slant has changed. Now, it appears that it was a common practice for the Viet Namese jailers to pressure POWs into going to church services when a crew of western journalists would show up, just so the Viet Namese could be seen as treating prisoners humanely. On one of these occasions when they were trying to get McCain to go to church, McCain responded with a curse ("Fu-u-u-u-*k you, son of a b*tch" then giving the one-fingered salute to the guard. It could very well have been the case that the guard McCain implied was a secret Christian pal was just trying to coerce him into going to church.

Aug 18, 2008 at 06:08 PM : The freepers had...

The freepers had McBush pegged a long time ago: a phony. The only reason they're backing him now is that his opponent is a "ni(BONG!)"

I said, his opponent is a ni(BONG!)

(Sorry, "Blazing Saddles" joke.)

I don't think there *WAS* any Christian guard. McBush stole the story from Solzienitzyn because it sounded good. If it were true he'd have told about it earlier, not saved it for when he needed to get in good with the fundies. Similarly, his shifting story about telling the jailers the names of a football team's offensive line. I think he quite likely just spilled his guts

Aug 18, 2008 at 06:08 PM : Well, I'll say...

Well, I'll say it: most of us have made up our minds who gets the "X" on the ballot. I wish we could all just go to sleep until after it's over, and quit bickering about it. Me included. To a Martian, we'd probably all be considered to be acting like kids fighting during recess -- fighting about something that cannot be won. The only thing that matters is that we vote. Every last one of us.

Aug 18, 2008 at 07:08 PM : Catherine...

Catherine says:"I was just being flippant, Saber. I'm not arguing with you on your points."

I understood that.

Besides, I'm not looking for a fight, only productive discourse.

"I agree that too many idiots are congratulating themselves on having babies they cannot care for instead of having abortions and being baby murderers. I think the main reason behind this is that there really is no longer a stigma against stupid, unmarried 15-year-old girls having babies, but there is still a stigma against abortion. Whatever the path of least resistance is, you know. They'll worry about tomorrow (and the next 20 years) later."

Good point. Productive discourse.

"However, implying that parents are somehow ruining the world because of world overpopulation just because YOU don't want kids and can't see beyond your own ego and admit that other people who don't think like you do may not, as a result, be WRONG, deserves a big *SMACK!* from my gentle, mothering hand."

I don't know what my ego has to do with any of this. Your summary reduction of another's reasonable view to a banal egotistical inability to present a cogent thought is not in the least productive.

My personal views, observations and opinions are simply that and nothing more. I don't represent them as anything more. My statements were not couched in terms of right or wrong, good or bad or any other empirical judgment.

I don't really need to "admit" that my views are not necessarily held by others. I'm actually not so ignorant and egotistical that I don't know that. Apparently, judging by your statement alleging that my view is clouded by an ego problem, you think otherwise.

But the fact is, I welcome discussion with those holding different views, even with those who choose to resort to ad hominem argument.

Ego, indeed.

If anyone deserves a *smack* here, it would be you for your insulting remark.

My opinion as stated earlier is that some parents fail to intelligently address teen sex and that failure might indeed contribute to an equally ignorant daughter and result in an unplanned pregnancy.

My further observation is that overpopulation in underdeveloped nations leads directly to their problems with poverty and a host of other social maladies. Unchecked, overpopulation will adversely affect not only these uderdeveloped nations but the entire planet.

Birth control and abortion serve to alleviate population growth.

Now, what is so egotistical about that?

Aug 18, 2008 at 07:08 PM : ...

Sage says: Huh? Did I mention getting "laid"? I'm so confused.....Saber~ for the record:I did not mention getting "laid" at all. But to be clear,I am for it,given consenting adults.

You said earlier to my contention that women control pregnancy and the man has no say in the matter, that a man's say ends where his zipper begins.

As the discussion concerned pregnancy, I perhaps erroneously interpreted your comment as an allusion to man's genitalia.

Man unzips to urinate, fornicate, masterbate or simply undress for bed or bath. I chose to jokingly respond to the fornication aspect.

Women unzip for similar reasons.......

Anyway, whatever the point, it is now stale.

Aug 18, 2008 at 07:08 PM : Sage never said that,...

Sage never said that, Saber. I did. You can apologize to Sage anytime.

As for calling you egotistical. Sorry. I didn't realize you were so sensitive about it. I'm also sorry that you thought I was insulting you when I said you deserved a smack. That was actually a joke. I'll try to make my jokes more obvious in the future.

Aug 18, 2008 at 07:08 PM : Catherine...

Catherine says: "Sage never said that, Saber. I did. You can apologize to Sage anytime."

Sorry Sage.

"As for calling you egotistical. Sorry. I didn't realize you were so sensitive about it. I'm also sorry that you thought I was insulting you when I said you deserved a smack. That was actually a joke. I'll try to make my jokes more obvious in the future."

Catherine, I'm really not all that sensitive about it. I simply felt that having one's earnestly presented and reasonable opinion reduced to egotistical banality merits a defensive response, especially if the comment was intended seriously.

I perceived no indication of humor in your comment, so I responded defensively to the raw verbiage which, incidentally seemed harsh if intended seriously. Especially coming from reasonable you.

Thank you for the clarification and apology.

I, too, apologize for my failure to recognize your humor. I guess we have been conditioned by the hostility exhibited by some bloggers to sometimes overlook and overreact.

As for the smack part, I suspected it might be in jest but....

Well anyway, I'm not a fan of the use of emoticons, but it is quite common that the intent of humor is often otherwise overlooked.

I'm afraid that much of my rhetoric is also often widely misconstrued whether intended to be serious or not.

But I should have known by now after reading your intelligent and insightful comments for years now, that you're not one to wontonly insult another. My bad.

I, too will try to be a better communicator in the future.

Aug 18, 2008 at 08:08 PM : Saber~Thanks ,heat of...

Saber~Thanks ,heat of the moment and all that.

Aug 18, 2008 at 08:08 PM : Saber, my humor is...

Saber, my humor is often misconstrued. Believe me, you're not alone.

I guess where I'm coming from is that I'm a mother of a 4-year-old and an 8-month-old, and so I'm probably sensitive, myself, where questions of overpopulation are concerned. Me? Overpopulating the world? Naaaww.

I know a lot of people say this, but having children was the best thing that ever happened to me. What's funny is that I pretty much felt the same way as you seem to about kids and the world's overpopulation. I was never a girl that liked dolls (boooring!) and I never wanted to hold babies, even into my twenties. I just couldn't see what the big deal was, and I secretly suspected that people only said the day of their child's birth was the best day of their lives because they thought that's what other people wanted to hear.

What changed for me was when I met my husband. I was 30. I fell so wildly and crazily in love with this man that I had feelings I'd never had before. All my former beliefs were turned on their heads and suddenly I WANTED kids. I wanted to share my love even more; expand my love. It's all cheesy, I know, but true. It's hard to explain to someone who's never felt that way, but I will say one thing--it's kinda like my life before I had my kids was all in black and white, and everything since then is in color. A bright kaleidoscope of color. Really.

So you can believe people when they say having kids was the best thing that ever happened to them--it's true. Also, it's one of the major milestones of life, along with birth, love, death, etc. I would never discourage someone from experiencing this major aspect of life--it's just too cool. Maybe you'll have a reversal of thinking, too, and maybe you won't. I'm just glad I did.

Aug 19, 2008 at 09:08 AM : ...

So, Catherine, your "biological clock" began ticking upon the discovery of the perfect specimen with whom to giddily co mingle genes and create hybrid clones of yourselves.

The perfect genetic recipe, huh?

How wonderful.

Makes you wanna smile and sing Zip-A-Dee-Doo-Dah all day long?

Yeah, well, you'll be singing a different tune when they need a couple hundred grand apiece to go to Ivy League colleges, and convertibles to get back and forth to your heavily mortgaged house on Thanksgiving where you will feed them turkey for the 26th time and do their laundry between the three jobs you have to work at to pay off the high interest second and maxed-out equity line.

Oh yeah, and three months after they graduate, the girl(s) will want to be married and become housewives.

The weddings and receptions for 470 in the Hilton ballroom and dance with daddy in $8,000 dresses to a full orchestra shouldn't set you back more than $25K or so each.

But, hey, who's counting? It's her Big Day, a once-in-a-lifetime thing. You can put it on the Amex card with the extended payment option.

You should be able to pay off the photographer, planner, consultant, bridesmaid dresses, tuxedo rentals, flowers, invitations and miscellaneous stuff with what's left of your IRA and the sale of a couple stocks you managed to hang onto.

Oh, and you'll need to fly Grandma Ellie and, Grandpa Joe, and a few aunts and uncles from the east coast, Midwest and one from Alaska. And favorite Uncle Chet who's on hemo dialysis and a respirator will need a full blown medical transport plane and a nurse.

And someone's gotta help the kids get started in their own new homes with down payments.....

But all your sacrifices will be rewarded when you get old.

The kids will make sure you get into a decent nursing home that doesn't smell too awful except when Mrs Whitfield lets loose with a load in her wheelchair.

They'll visit every couple weeks with the snotty grand kids who sit impatiently in the corner with their noses wrinkled at the acrid aroma of old age, their ears stuffed with Ipods, anxious to get to Burger King for dinner.

The girls will make sure you have plenty of Depends and even your own television with a good set of earphones to drown out the ominous rales of Mr Mancini, your 104-year-old room mate.

Maybe, if the son-in-law's doing good with his optometry business, you might even get a private room....

Actually, Catherine, I'm not a stranger to the world of child rearing after having had a natural and three steps who are all now raising their own children.

I wasn't very good at it, but a couple of them somehow ended up liking me.

But I'm not counting on them for long term elder care.

My present wife and I won't be "having" any of our own. We're content to spend the foreseeable future devoted entirely to each other.

There's been some talk between us about possible adoption, but it's looking extremely unlikely.

She's considerably younger than me and I expect after she sells the house and golf cart that she'll see to it that I get on Medicaid and at least have a television and laptop in my room.

But it's not all that bleak.

Barring Alzheimer's and dementia, I will have the comfort of some pleasant memories.

Aug 19, 2008 at 09:08 AM : Saber, you seem to be...

Saber, you seem to be uber-sensitive when it comes to remarks from other bloggers, and completely insensible of your own critical shortcomings. Kinda like...oh I don't know...a HYPOCRITE!!!!

Please spare me your butt-hurt whines in the future. And just so you know, I didn't read your whole novela-length post. The first couple of sentences were enough to make me understand you're a nut.

Aug 19, 2008 at 09:08 AM : Saberhagen Wow you...

Saberhagen

Wow you sound bitter.

Sorry child rearing was such a bust for you. Considering you're first disappointment you're smart to stay away from it the second time.

Aug 19, 2008 at 09:08 AM : With you on...

With you on the "not counting on elder-care" issue Saber.

Do the best you can with em, they may love ya or hate ya, but for your own care -- save yer sheckles.....LOL!

The best we can hope for is have enough of em to pay a competent disinterested professional to cater to our needs......... ;-)

I disabused myself of the "elder-care by progeny" ethic many moons ago.......

Aug 19, 2008 at 09:08 AM : Oh I didn't know...

Oh I didn't know the plan was to have children so they could take care of you in your "old age".

If you need someone to finish raising you, marry again.

Aug 19, 2008 at 09:08 AM : ...

Talk about sensitive, Jeez..

I guess my attempt at humor was widely misconstrued.

Sorry, I forgot the emoticons.

Aug 19, 2008 at 09:08 AM : No body cares about...

No body cares about your old geezer problems.

Aug 19, 2008 at 10:08 AM : ...

Catherine, Audrey, you guys seriously don't get that I wrote what I thought a humorous piece?

So now I'm an oversensitive hypocritical nut case?

Man, maybe you guys need to get your hormones right or something.

It was humor, nothing more.

Unbelievable.

Chico, did you get it?

Aug 19, 2008 at 10:08 AM : Keep your day job,...

Keep your day job, Saber.

I wrote a serious, heartfelt post about why I became a mother and you reduced it to my "biological clock" ticking. Nice.

I guess I don't really know where you're coming from, and perhaps I never will.

Here's some constructive criticism, though: what you seem to consider humor actually comes off (on the blogs, anyway) as a bitter rant.

Also, save yourself some time by refraining from addressing posts directly to me in the future. I won't be reading them.

Aug 19, 2008 at 10:08 AM : Hormone...

Hormone talk. How original. I'm cut to the quick.

If you think your post is funny you must be a laugh riot when you drink. You probably slap the rear of the nearest cocktail waitress and order up another round for the boys. Yee Haw

Aug 19, 2008 at 10:08 AM : ...

Sorry to have tweaked your delicate sensitivities, girls.

Guess I'll just shuffle on off to my day job writing unfunny material for standup comics and slap the asses of a few cocktail waitresses while puffing cigars and guffawing with the boys over shots of Jack and bad jokes.

Aug 19, 2008 at 10:08 AM : You're not...

You're not important enough to me for me to feel "tweaked" by anything you say. Hope that doesn't hurt your manly pride.

Aug 19, 2008 at 12:08 PM : Did I get it? Hell,...

Did I get it?

Hell, when I first saw Audrey's comment, I thought she was talking to ME! ROTFLMAO!

Aug 19, 2008 at 02:08 PM : ...

Chico says: "Hell, when I first saw Audrey's comment, I thought she was talking to ME! ROTFLMAO!"

Nah, your safe.

They have me to kick around now.

I made a joke of motherhood, kids and old people.

You can't sink any lower than that.

Besides, Audrey's hated me since I busted her chops over a nasty, hateful, venomous diatribe she once spewed in a vicious name-calling attack against Lois Henry over a column she didn't like.

Aug 19, 2008 at 04:08 PM : Some of the grand kids...

Some of the grand kids came to visit when I had an operation once. I was laying there with the tubes and everything running everywhere and one of them was fooling around with the machine that monitors heart rate, etc. She was also squeezing on the IV bag and tube.... I finally said: "what the heck are you doing girl?"

My wife just quietly said: "She's practicing. Wait until she finds the plug........"

A couple years later I saw the same thing on "2.5 Men" and felt like I should've gotten royalties.......

Aug 19, 2008 at 04:08 PM : ...

Chico, be sure not to grant medical power of attorney to the kid who kicked the dog, pilfered money from your pocket when you were asleep and when confronted lied blaming it on the innocent sister.

Never hire a nurse that your dog doesn't like.

Aug 19, 2008 at 04:08 PM : When someone express...

When someone express hurt,it must be the most costly thing to say I am sorry,simply and with out any buts.Saber~ you seem a nice enough guy,but hate is a strong word . But I had to laugh at the emotions on Chico's blog...but I use the old fashioned kind myself,when my intent maybe unclear.As far as kids taking care of you in old age~ mine died to get out of it..... :-)

Aug 19, 2008 at 07:08 PM : Saberhagen I...

Saberhagen

I don't even remember the exchange you're referring to. I remember letting Lois have it over her mean spirited column about Sheriff's deputies but I don't remember you being in that conversation. Really, it meant so little to me, until today I would have sworn they we never exhanged insults.

Aug 19, 2008 at 09:08 PM : Ya'll are so...

Ya'll are so sensitive. Reading this from a perfectly detached 3rd person point of view, I could easily embrace Catherine's heartfelt reflection of motherhood. The next post by Saber carried such a different tone it actually seemed like he is a jaded prick; however, his head is just in a different place. You can see from his later claim that he was smearing on the sarcasm thick and really didn't mean to minimize Catherine's love of parenthood.

This isn't a reason for you to poo-poo each other forever. Audrey, you too. I just can't bear it if this doesn't get swept under the rug.

Never underestimate the power of the smiley face, or otherwise saying point blank what is meant to be funny, ironic, silly, critical. blah blah blah.

It just kills me to see people fight when they're both "right." Now hug.

Aug 20, 2008 at 07:08 AM : What was it Lois said...

What was it Lois said about Deputies?

Was it when she talked about their big bellies or what?

Aug 20, 2008 at 07:08 AM : Chico It was the...

Chico

It was the physical comparison Lois made between Sheriff's Deputies and Bakersfield Police Officers that made me upset. It was blatantly unfair. Not once did she mentioned that the BPD has a MUCH younger force of officers. They are naturally going to be thinner. It also makes sense that, being younger, more of them are not married or tied down with kids and household problems. They have more free time to stay in shape. Not like the older family men you find in the Sheriff's dept.

She never mentioned the strengths you find in the KCSO that you won't find at the BPD. For instance, did her article ever mention that the BPD officers ARE TRAINED by officers of the Sheriff's dept. Did she mention that sheriffs deputies (on average) do not have the "hot dog" mentality you find at the BPD which is making us infamous in California. That because sheriffs deputies can diffuse dangerous situations using their experience rather than having to go to force.

She didn't mention the 50 pounds of weight that a sheriffs deputy wears across his chest and around his waist. You don't bounce out of a patrol car (as she expects) with that kind of weight bearing down on you.

I tried to pick up a fully loaded belt and a vest once. My legs buckled. I wish Lois had thought to do the same experiment.

I made peace with Lois after her article. She's never acknowledged anything I've ever written since then so I imagine she's hasn't made peace with me. But that's the price you pay for having strong opinions. At any rate, the column which I didn't like was only one of the many she's written that I was in total agreement with.

Does that answer your question Chico?

Aug 20, 2008 at 07:08 AM : It was the...

Excellent point! I bet if anyone cared to look into the situation at present they would find out that this is right on point. Seems to me the KCSO has recently undergone a massive demographics change with a whole spate of older heads retiring and new ones brought on. I talk to Deputies every chance I get and note that many of the older ones have a tool shed (like me) and its just a manifestation of age. Most of them are getting ready to retire out -- which also makes me realize the veracity in the 3 @ 50 retirement scheme as chasing crooks at much past 50 doesn't really seem like a good ID to me.

The only drawback to the 3 @ 50 to me is that they lose a wealth of experience that could fare just fine in a management/desk job situation. Why should all these older Deputies (or any LEO's) have to become school cops, etc. out there upon turning 50 doing more physical stuff when they could sit behind a desk and avail their Depts of their vast experience (their brains) garnered over many years and much taxpayer $$ being spent on them?

I have always thought the Delayed Retirement Options, etc. I've read about where these older guys can go ahead and take advantage of the 3 @ 50 and bank into Def Comp, etc. a current salary., would make sense...... Win - Win seems to me...........

Aug 20, 2008 at 08:08 AM : Glad you agree with...

Glad you agree with me. Maybe someday a fair piece will be written about the strengths in the KCSD.

I just watched the Obama-McCain Saddleback Forum and......... - MOO! - ChicoEsquela's Blog - Bakersfield.com

Aug 16, 2008 at 07:08 PM : I sure called this one...

Aug 16, 2008 at 07:08 PM : I think that Obama...

Aug 16, 2008 at 08:08 PM : McCain did quite well....

Aug 16, 2008 at 08:08 PM : I don't think an...

Aug 16, 2008 at 08:08 PM : I'm quite sure...

Aug 16, 2008 at 08:08 PM : *snicker*

Aug 16, 2008 at 09:08 PM : I watched, although I...

Aug 17, 2008 at 01:08 AM : I read the transcripts...

Aug 17, 2008 at 07:08 AM : Skipped it.

Aug 17, 2008 at 07:08 AM : Obama refused to...

Aug 17, 2008 at 08:08 AM : I'm quite sure...

Aug 17, 2008 at 08:08 AM : Wow, HM--from what you...

Aug 17, 2008 at 08:08 AM : Adam I wish we could...

Aug 17, 2008 at 08:08 AM : Cat Your cheese is...

Aug 17, 2008 at 08:08 AM : Surprisingly, I...

Aug 17, 2008 at 08:08 AM : McBush benefits from...

Aug 17, 2008 at 09:08 AM : This kinda reminds me...

Aug 17, 2008 at 09:08 AM : jfrancais: "Surp...

Aug 17, 2008 at 09:08 AM : McBush gave his...

Aug 17, 2008 at 10:08 AM : Mattloch,...

Aug 17, 2008 at 10:08 AM : I missed the thing....

Aug 17, 2008 at 10:08 AM : McCain laughed and...

Aug 17, 2008 at 10:08 AM : When Democrats have...

Aug 17, 2008 at 01:08 PM : ...

Aug 17, 2008 at 02:08 PM : Anyone know where can...

Aug 17, 2008 at 02:08 PM : NOt sure what religion...

Aug 17, 2008 at 02:08 PM : Some of the...

Aug 17, 2008 at 03:08 PM : NOt sure...

Aug 17, 2008 at 03:08 PM : What do you gain by...

Aug 17, 2008 at 04:08 PM : That's what...

Aug 17, 2008 at 04:08 PM : FWIW, ronmexico was...

Aug 17, 2008 at 04:08 PM : One area where I...

Aug 17, 2008 at 04:08 PM : Clearly Obama...

Aug 17, 2008 at 04:08 PM : Either I am totally...

Aug 17, 2008 at 04:08 PM : No, dril, in effect he...

Aug 17, 2008 at 04:08 PM : Either I am...

Aug 17, 2008 at 04:08 PM : Catherine, me either,...

Aug 17, 2008 at 05:08 PM : Interesting,...

Aug 17, 2008 at 07:08 PM : Chico: "The...

Aug 17, 2008 at 07:08 PM : Hussein, by voting on...

Aug 17, 2008 at 07:08 PM : "we have NO...

Aug 17, 2008 at 09:08 PM : See what happens when...

Aug 18, 2008 at 03:08 AM : Interesting,...

Aug 18, 2008 at 06:08 AM : I believe you,...

Aug 18, 2008 at 07:08 AM : ...

Aug 18, 2008 at 07:08 AM : Of course a cesarean...

Aug 18, 2008 at 07:08 AM : Why have late-term...

Aug 18, 2008 at 07:08 AM : That's correct...

Aug 18, 2008 at 07:08 AM : Sage As cruel as that...

Aug 18, 2008 at 07:08 AM : ronmexico: "Obama...

Aug 18, 2008 at 07:08 AM : Decades ago the State...

Aug 18, 2008 at 07:08 AM : Chico: This...

Aug 18, 2008 at 08:08 AM : Maybe it just comes...

Aug 18, 2008 at 08:08 AM : Chico: ...

Aug 18, 2008 at 08:08 AM : Cat, that...

Aug 18, 2008 at 08:08 AM : Carrying a dead baby...

Aug 18, 2008 at 08:08 AM : Well put, as always,...

Aug 18, 2008 at 08:08 AM : Also, I think...

Aug 18, 2008 at 08:08 AM : In other words,...

Aug 18, 2008 at 08:08 AM : Some people...

Aug 18, 2008 at 08:08 AM : ...

Aug 18, 2008 at 09:08 AM : Newest Dem talking...

Aug 18, 2008 at 09:08 AM : "Is there...

Aug 18, 2008 at 09:08 AM : If those 1.2...

Aug 18, 2008 at 09:08 AM : ...

Aug 18, 2008 at 09:08 AM : Men always have a say,...

Aug 18, 2008 at 09:08 AM : Well said, sage....

Aug 18, 2008 at 10:08 AM : ...

Aug 18, 2008 at 10:08 AM : I was just being...

Aug 18, 2008 at 10:08 AM : Huh? Did I mention...

Aug 18, 2008 at 11:08 AM : Saber~ for...

Aug 18, 2008 at 11:08 AM : The more I see of...

Aug 18, 2008 at 11:08 AM : I really don't...

Aug 18, 2008 at 11:08 AM : I agree Ling~ and we...

Aug 18, 2008 at 11:08 AM : Chico: ...

Aug 18, 2008 at 11:08 AM : So whom-ever...

Aug 18, 2008 at 11:08 AM : "He's...

Aug 18, 2008 at 11:08 AM : "Intellectual...

Aug 18, 2008 at 11:08 AM : I agree,...

Aug 16, 2008 at 08:08 PM : snicker

Aug 18, 2008 at 02:08 PM : First of all, it WAS...

Aug 18, 2008 at 04:08 PM : On THIS planet, at...