Are you watching the RNC?

I'm a former republican who became an independent after the takeover of the party by Dirty Dickie Nixon.  However, out of fairness, I feel I have to give a listen to them.

I'm not feeling very fair though.  Why are these people so conformist?  I haven't seen so many black suits and red dresses since the last RNC.  Then there are the delegations all dressed the same, like some kind of square dance team - Texas has identical red shirts and straw (I think) cowboy hats.  Another delegation is all dressed in blue denim shirts.  I long for the craziness of the DNC.  They had some music but nobody was dancing in the aisles - the just sat demurely in their seats, clapping in time or sort of bouncing their heads.  What duds.

Then there's this little tidbit

http://www.washingtonindependent.com/3934/rep ublicans-lobbyists-party-with-hookers-and-blo w

I suppose they have to let off all that pent up steam somehow. 

The speeches so far are about what you'd expect.  Fred Thompson talked about McCain's life, but stopped with him being a POW.  didn't he have a life after that?  Not one mention of his two marriages and all those kids. 

I intend to stick with this.  Who knows, maybe there will be something said or done that will change my jaundiced mind.

What do you think of it?  And feel free to disagree with me - I don't mind - it's called free discourse.

One caveat: no discussion of Sarah Palin - we have a thread for that already.

I'm a registered Democrat; loved the speech and am voting for McCain/Palin

Caverlady, if I may... Why?

Original Post by hgielrehtaeh:

Caverlady, if I may... Why?

 I can't speak for Caverlady, but I'm a registered Republican and for a while there I seriously considered voting Democrat.  It's easy to see that both sides have some good points.

Sometimes people just have to go with what issues are more important to them at the time.  Others sometimes just have a gut instinct about one person more than the other.  It could be many reasons, I think.

Original Post by hgielrehtaeh:

Palin: Taxes are too high ... he wants to raise them. His tax increases are the fine print in his economic plan, and let me be specific.

The Democratic nominee for president supports plans to raise income taxes ...

See for yourself what your taxes will be under both Obama and McCain:

http://alchemytoday.com/obamataxcut/

Who is Sarah Palin talking to? The wealthy people of this country who have over $5,000,000? Because that's what McCain considers "wealthy", and that's where McCain draws the lines in his tax bracket.

 I'm too lazy to dig for the table my husband showed me last night. I guess McCain is only worried about giving BIG FAT tax breaks to these ridiculously rich buddies of us. Screw the rest of us

How can you vote for someone who can't even tell you how many damn houses he owns?

Also, for those of you crying "well I'm not going to vote for someone just on the abortion issue" maybe you should think again. What other parts of your body might come under legislation?

GAH I wish I could rocket this thread into the sun.

Original Post by spirochete:

Also, for those of you crying "well I'm not going to vote for someone just on the abortion issue" maybe you should think again. What other parts of your body might come under legislation?

 If the government even hinted that they were going to legislate the male reproductive system they'd be overthrown before they even finished the sentence.

they did, but it was to guarantee that medicare will cover viagra & cialis

*shakes head*

that ought to be enough for the older women of america to vote against republicans, right there!

i keed!  i keed the old men with 4-hour erections!

Original Post by peaches0405:

Original Post by laura42:

Original Post by kathygator:

I was referring to my state of mind in 2000, peaches. In 1996, I had very serious concerns that the Reps were indeed going to reverse Roe V Wade, and did 'vote for my uterus' in that election. :)

 If Roe V Wade is overturned (which I don't think it will be), abortion does not become illegal.  It goes from a national issues back to a states issue.  Each state decides how they want to handle it, and federal money no longer goes towards abortion. 

 Regardless of how anyone feels about abortion, why does anyone think that federal money should go toward it???   It's something that someone chooses to do...except in cases where the mother's life is in danger.

Can someone please explain this to me?

 I could use an explanation too.  The point is that the abortion issue is very murky.  I wouldn't choose a candidate based on their abortion views.   I think it's important for people to realize that if Roe v Wade is overturned, we do not go back to the dark ages where women wanting an abortion are forced to seek out unsafe, illegal abortions.  It means each state legislates the matter separately.  Currently there are conservative pockets in the country, liberal areas and moderate areas.  Since each state elects its own congress and senate,  usually the leaders reflect fairly closely what majority of people living in each state want.  I think that is a better way to approach the issue.

Sorry for hijacking the thread.  We can go back to the RNC now. 

Giving any governing body the ability to outlaw abortion is sickening. Just because a vocal majority of bible thumpers live in an area doesn't mean that all women in that state should be subjected to their backwoods views.

Original Post by laura42:

Original Post by peaches0405:

Original Post by laura42:

Original Post by kathygator:

If Roe V Wade is overturned (which I don't think it will be), abortion does not become illegal.  It goes from a national issues back to a states issue.  Each state decides how they want to handle it, and federal money no longer goes towards abortion. 

 Regardless of how anyone feels about abortion, why does anyone think that federal money should go toward it???   It's something that someone chooses to do...except in cases where the mother's life is in danger.

Can someone please explain this to me?

 I could use an explanation too.  The point is that the abortion issue is very murky.  I wouldn't choose a candidate based on their abortion views.   I think it's important for people to realize that if Roe v Wade is overturned, we do not go back to the dark ages where women wanting an abortion are forced to seek out unsafe, illegal abortions.  It means each state legislates the matter separately.  Currently there are conservative pockets in the country, liberal areas and moderate areas.  Since each state elects its own congress and senate,  usually the leaders reflect fairly closely what majority of people living in each state want.  I think that is a better way to approach the issue.

Sorry for hijacking the thread.  We can go back to the RNC now. 

 Because the vast majority of women getting abortions are poor. If you can't afford to have an abortion from a real doctor because your health care is too high, you "are forced to seek out unsafe, illegal abortions". That is why clinics get funding.

Not to mention that clinics like Planned Parenthood get so much funding from the government, and only a little goes to abortions -- the rest goes to keeping women healthy and keeping women who don't want to be pregnant from getting pregnant (and preventing the need for some women to get abortions).

Instead of outlawing abortions, we as a society should look to reduce the number of them. I want women to have the choice, but really, if women didn't have to face that decision, that's the best situation, really.

So increase funding for sex ed, contraceptives, and clinics which help women understand their bodies and how to significantly reduce the chances of being pregnant. Increase social programs that will make it economically feasible for a young, single woman with little to no health care, carry a baby to term, and then have a means to support said baby.

Numbers will drop.

Original Post by peaches0405:

Original Post by hgielrehtaeh:

Caverlady, if I may... Why?

 I can't speak for Caverlady, but I'm a registered Republican and for a while there I seriously considered voting Democrat.  It's easy to see that both sides have some good points.

Sometimes people just have to go with what issues are more important to them at the time.  Others sometimes just have a gut instinct about one person more than the other.  It could be many reasons, I think.

 I understand why people switch parties, Peaches. I don't understand why, in this election, a Democrat would switch to vote for McCain.

Original Post by spirochete:

Also, for those of you crying "well I'm not going to vote for someone just on the abortion issue" maybe you should think again. What other parts of your body might come under legislation?

GAH I wish I could rocket this thread into the sun.

 I assume you are referring to me since that is pretty much exactly what I said in a previous post on this thread....Although I don't remember any "crying" as you put it.

I will answer with this:  Roe Vs. Wade is never going to get overturned...it's just not.  I don't care how conservative a president is.  It's just not gonna happen.  Therefore, I prefer to focus on other issues.  If abortion is the most important issue to you, and you wish to vote solely on that issue, then that is your right...but that's not me....and I'm not crying about it either.

Edit: and I'm not worried about my other body parts because abortion is all about the argument of when a fetus becomes another human with rights.  I doubt that anyone is ever going to argue that I can't have my kidney removed because my kidney has rights.

Original Post by hgielrehtaeh:

Caverlady, if I may... Why?

 There are many things I don't like about Obama, but foremost I see him as an elitist and very much into his own superiority.  I have also noticed this in many, but not all, of his supporters.  As a resident of a small town, I took offense to a great number of comments against Palin as a mayor of a "backwater town"  It seems to me that America is made up of a great number of "backwater towns" and they should not be ignored or belittled simply because they don't have a TV station.  Secondly I think he is a racist although many people don't agree.  He referred to his grandmother as a "typical white person."  Suppose I referred to a black person as a "typical black person,"  I would be run out of town on a rail, and any white polictician that says as such would be ostracized.  Third, I'm sick and tired of hearing about how all the "highly educated" people are liberal.  I guess this means that since I only have a 2 year degree I don't count and neither do the countless working class people that have only high school? And don't even get me started on how the Democratic Party left Hillary Clinton flapping in the wind.  I've been totally turned off the things said by Obama and many of his supporters, and totally excited by Sarah Palin's refreshing speech.  I'm sick and tired of people screaming "Roe V Wade will be overturned and women will die in the streets!"  That's ridiculous scare tactics designed to scare uninformed women into voting Democrat.  Safe legal abortions are here to stay and we all know it, and I find that to be an insult to my intelligence.  These are only a few of the reasons this registered Democrat will be voting Republican.

Actually most of our population lives in and around cities. 

I don't get that vibe from Obama at all.  I look at his background - 12 years of teaching constitutional law, working directly with people in Chicago, fighting for programs that really help actual people, and all his bipartisan efforts both in the Illinois senate and in the US senate, where he manages a staff of 69.

Contrast that with Sarah Palin - a BA degree in Journalism, no public service except the PTA (heck, I was in the PTA), public office in a town that had a surplus and that she left with a $1.3 million debt to pay for a sports stadium, Governor of a state with half the population of Philadelphia, where she had a staff of 11.  A record of vetoing programs for unwed teens, senior citizens and the disabled on the grounds that they were wasteful.  However, she is in favor for welfare for the rich - she wants to give all tax breaks to the very wealthy.

Her only Washington experience was traveling there to lobby for earmarked money.  Alaska now has more earmarked money per capita than any other state.  She's also under investigation for abuse of power.  She once tried to fire a librarian for refusing to ban books.  I guess she knows all about gun rights, but fails to understand the importance free speech. 

She has already insulted Russia and they are objecting to her remarks about the oil pipeline in the caucasus.  She insulted the media and the very Washington insiders who she will need if she is to be effective.  All this is a matter of public record and can easily be found online.

She's deceptive, mean spirited, sarcastic, hostile and divisive.  The last thing we need is a "pitbull." The country will be in real trouble if McCain wins and then dies.

My objection to her has nothing to do with her gender or her family situation.  Those are non issues and off limits, as Obama forcefully pointed out.  I think she does not play well with others.

This is the very last comment I'm going to make on her.  There's already a well established thread to discuss her and her qualifications.

What's with more people turning into Palin's speech last night than Obama's...
That makes me nervous.

edit: Wait, I think Obama had a million more viewers....
I keep coming across different things now!

Dunno, Misstrata....but her outfit looks fine tonight.

This "clean coal" thing is ridiculously oxymoronic and I wish they would stop talking about it like it's the second coming. I don't care what you strip out of coal, there is nothing clean about the mining, transport or the disposal of the byproducts of burning coal. As long as we continue to rely on an unsustainable source of energy we are not heading in the right direction. Yes it's better than the current system, but it's not going to fix global warming, nor our reliance on fossil fuels. It's stupid in much the same way lauding ethanol as the thing that will save the environment is stupid. I wish they would quit it and look for actual alternatives instead of glossing over the issue with sound bites and quick fixes.

I do believe they are all for looking for better alternatives as well as trying to make the best out of what we have until a better alternative is found.

Original Post by caverlady:

Original Post by hgielrehtaeh:

Caverlady, if I may... Why?

There are many things I don't like about Obama, but foremost I see him as an elitist and very much into his own superiority.

So what if he's an elitist, when did being "elite" become a bad thing? We're talking about the most powerful position in the world, I WANT the most powerful person to be an elitist. I want someone who is at the top to lead. I want someone smarter, more wordly, and all around better than the average joe to be president. Isn't this the definition of elite?

Too many people vote for a person just because they want to have a beer with them. It's not about that its about who's best for the job.

Original Post by peaches0405:

I do believe they are all for looking for better alternatives as well as trying to make the best out of what we have until a better alternative is found.

Let me rephrase. They should be pouring all the money - x100 - they are wasting on quick fixes (that are screwing up the environment even more) into alternative, sustainable fuel research.