Thread: Sarah Palin?

Originally Posted by IceHammer

Originally Posted by asianator365

Originally Posted by IceHammer

Because its natural for the father to be more removed from family than the mother. Every animal species ever with the exception of i think seahorses has significantly less contact or no contact with the father while the mother takes care of rasing the offspring. Evolution is slower than womens rights. Personally I could care less that she has a family while in politics. Where is the difference between being VP and working somewhere else? That doesn't stop people from having a natural reaction that she should be with her kids though.

Hmm...isn't it strange that all the liberals who claim two gay men can raise a child just as effectively as a heterosexual couple and that a woman should be able to have a career and a family, are the same people attacking Sarah Palin for breaking with the "natural" motherly role of staying home and raising the children?

So your missing the point here. People's gut reaction on a mother's connection to rasing children has nothing to do with gay couples raising childern. Typical conservative reaction to change the subject to avoid something they don't like.

Wasn't directly addressing you Ice...your comment merely got my mind going. And I'm just raising issues with the media's "impartiality."

McCain doesn't?
Barack does.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/14/us...ign.html?fta=y
Senator Barack Obama on Thursday released a list of $740 million in earmarked spending requests that he had made over the last three years, and his campaign challenged Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton to do the same.

But then....

http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/04/15/obama.earmarks/
This year, as the Senate funding request deadline approaches and the final primaries of the Democratic nomination process draw near, Obama's staff told CNN the junior senator from Illinois will request no earmarks for fiscal year 2009.

All polticians lie. Obama probably won't hold to his statement for 2009 if he doesn't get elected.

And in case you were wondering, McCains famous anti-pork barrel spending talks are also, you guessed it lies.

http://thinkprogress.org/2008/01/06/mccain-earmark/ (video and links to corroborating evidence)

Granted there isn't a terribly large amount of money in there, but I didn't research it that far. How many instances do we need in order to realize that both presidential candidates are boldfaced liars? The task here is to choose the least crappy candidate, rather than the best.

Back to the topic here, that would be the choice that keeps Sarah Palin as far from the whitehouse as physically possible (staying in alaska would be perfect here lol).

Originally Posted by SoySoldier

Their money is worth more than ours now...and a guy with my income can actually see the doc. Does not sound so bad.
And whats wrong with San Fancisco? Lot's of high tech, music and art...that is culture.
[/threadjack]

1usd=.93cad
get insurance
silly