Shotgun

Maybe he's just trying to piss off all the mid-30's women so that we'll post our racks to prove him wrong.

I stayed at the Maison Perrier, a nice B&B in the Garden District of New Orleans. It was a really cool place, but I was alone and not getting in until about 5AM each night, so I found it to be annoying when everyone was getting up at 8AM for breakfast. (Yes, the walls were thin!) And, of course, I missed most of the breakfasts. But I would recommend the place. I enjoyed drinking coffee in their courtyard, or sitting on the big front porch in a rocking chair, watching the rain. And the neighborhood is so beautiful. I went for several walks around there in the rain. (It was always raining, but it was warm.) Mmm, I miss New Orleans . . .

Yes, I would because being black isn't a choice or a lifestyle. Did you choose your sexual orientation?

I take it this Santorum guy has never studied any cultural anthropology.

they are all sins in most religions Well, if your religion is teaching you that homosexuality is on par with rape and murder (and you are buying it), then that's pretty sad.

1. I didn't call anyone a bigot. 2. He says he has homosexual "friends" but then he says he doesn't want then anywhere near his children. Doesn't make much sense to me. Why be friends with someone you think is so horrible? (Do you have murderer and rapist friends who you don't want anywhere near your children?) 3. Are you seriously comparing homosexuals to rapists and murderers?

He didn't say that he wouldn't want his kids hanging out with homosexuals. He said, "I wouldn't have them anywhere near my children." (emphasis mine) Which makes me wonder why he would even want to be friends with anyone who he feels that way about (assuming he actually does have homosexual friends, which I sort of doubt). Anyhow, with as much attention as he's still getting six months after the election, I think I smell a running mate for Palin in 2012! But maybe he could change his name to "Joe the Six-pack Plumber" or something like that.

There was a special session having to do with oil, and Palin didn't want to mix the two subjects. From her website, here is some info: http://gov.state.ak.us/archive-3843.html

OK, now I know that Obama's not exactly pro-gun, but how does his voting record make you certain that he will sign ANY anti-2nd legislation that makes it to his desk? (Are you including extreme legislation such as making all guns illegal in the U.S.? Or are you making the assumption that that sort of thing wouldn't make it to his desk?) I would *hope* that something like you describe would never make it to his desk - but, to answer the main point, I've not seen any evidence of him voting against any gun-control bills. If you can find any that he has voted against, let me know - I'd like to see them. I'm not aware of any gun-control bills that he's voted against, but from what I've seen of his voting record, it is not "ample proof that he *will*, in fact, sign any anti-2nd legislation that makes it to his desk." I can understand it being enough to make it a reason for you to not vote for him, but I think the above conclusion you make from it is a bit unfounded.

OK, now I know that Obama's not exactly pro-gun, but how does his voting record make you certain that he will sign ANY anti-2nd legislation that makes it to his desk? (Are you including extreme legislation such as making all guns illegal in the U.S.? Or are you making the assumption that that sort of thing wouldn't make it to his desk?)

Well, earlier you said: "Palin HAS had the opportunity to enact law and has not, regardless of her opinion." And I'm just pointing out that no, she hasn't had that opportunity because she doesn't create legislation. There has been anti-abortion legislation in Alaska since she has been Governor (which she has expressed her support for), but none of it has made it to her.

Ah, OK. So if the Governor just said that he would sign such a bill, but the bill never actually made it to him to sign, then you would still consider voting for him because it was just words with no action? Which is pretty relevant to Palin and the abortion situation. I think that since she can't even get a bill passed requiring parental consent for abortion in Alaska, she probably realizes that she's not going to get a law passed to make most abortions illegal.

She has supported bills to restrict abortion in Alaska, but they have not made it through the Legislature.

That's what it looked like to me.

This lawsuit?

Seriously? Maybe I missed something (quite possible), but I didn't see anything that justified removing him from the profession of teaching permanently. I would imagine this lawsuit was enough to change his behavior, but if not, then yeah, maybe he should go.

In a classroom environment, the teacher is in a position of authority, and that alone may make the student afraid to voice views that are not in agreement with the teacher. But I'm not sure if it's a First Amendment issue. Seems borderline to me.

Well, penniless did say "wants to force" not "is forcing." Though, despite Palin's stated opinion of thinking that abortion should be illegal even for rape/incest victims, I seriously doubt that she wants to force them to bear the rapist's child. I think she just sees it as a less bad choice in such a situation. (I don't agree with her.)

airtwardo?

Same reason there is such venom and malice directed at Obama (or many other politicians) - sometimes people get very emotional about their disagreements. There are some people on here who are insulting her, but some of us are just saying that we disagree with many of her beliefs and wouldn't likely vote for her. And I don't know about anyone else, but I am referring to all of the talk of her running in 2012 - not the previous election. Though her beliefs did influence my vote in the previous election, since the fact that McCain chose her was part of the reason that I didn't think he was the best choice for President. But yeah, 2012 is still a few years away, and her running is a very big "if," so it is probably a waste of time to be talking about this stuff right now. (But then most of the stuff we post on here is probably a waste of time.)

I believe that egg "donors" in the U.S. are often paid. But I think it is considered being compensated for her time rather than paying for the eggs. I don't have much of an opinion on it. If someone wants to "donate" their eggs then it's up to them whether they think they should be paid or not. It's not something I would likely do either way.

Looks like they may be trying to do that: http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090503/ap_on_go_pr_wh/us_gop_rebranding (Without Sarah Palin, so it seems.)

I figure if I make it to 90, I'll be a wrinkly old woman anyway, so it won't really matter if I have some wrinkly old tattoos.

It would be a big deal to me if she decided to run for President. It is one of the reasons I wouldn't vote for her. So... do you believe in checks and balances? Do you think that she would be able to overturn a Supreme Court ruling? (not attacking, just asking. and do note - single topic decisions do make and break elections... not just this topic, but another example would be second amendment rights. Do you consider both topics to be as valid a reason to vote or not vote for a candidate) Yes, I believe in checks and balances. I doubt that she would get Roe v. Wade overturned if she was in office, but the fact that she wants to is one of the reasons why I wouldn't vote for her. (I suppose I should rephrase that to say "most likely wouldn't vote for her." Since it would depend on who she was running against.) As for Second Amendment rights, that's probably one of the few issues that I would agree with her on. And yes, I think both topics are equally valid reasons for voting/not voting for someone. (But hopefully most people don't vote based on a single issue, though I get the impression that some do.)

It would be a big deal to me if she decided to run for President. It is one of the reasons I wouldn't vote for her.