Rawlins Family

Rawlins Family

Thursday, October 02, 2008


After watching the Vice Presidential debate I have a few thoughts to share.
First, I will say that I was highly surprised that Palin did as well as she did. Before the debate (which, by the way, pre-empted The Office...not a good sign) I mentioned to Chase that it was on and we should watch it. He replied that yes, we should watch the slaughter. "It will be like shooting fish in a barrel!" So I was impressed with how well-rehearsed and well-prepared Palin was. But that just wasn't enough to hold me over. Read with me now and we'll go over a few pros and cons in relation to Mrs. VP.

Pro - Her hair was much less annoying tonight. Less fluffy and librarian-y.

Con - Her blush was out of control in a very 1986 Cyndi Lauper kind of way.

Pro - At no point did she tell the moderator she would "Get back to her" with an answer.

Con - At no point did she actually answer any of the questions.

Pro - She only used the word "Maverick" 74 times.

Con - She still keeps using the word "Maverick."

Pro - She's a mom and I like that.

Con - She hasn't realized that being a mom doesn't count as "executive experience."

Pro - For the most part she used full sentences and didn't fill too much time with Um, Uh, or Hmmm.

Con - She was winking. Seriously. She was winking. Maybe she was chewing Bubble Yum, too. I couldn't tell.

Pro - She has given Tina Fey SO MUCH to work with.

Con - Tina Fey no longer is on staff at SNL so I don't know how much longer they'll let her keep guest-starring (though, hopefully at least through November).

Pro - She is a Washington Outsider.

Con - Not sure yet if she is able to spell Washington.

Anyway, you get my drift, right? Honestly, there just wasn't a whole lot of substance coming out of her. She was cute and peppy and used sweet little colloquialisms and gee isn't that nice. But I don't vote for nice. I don't vote because I think someone is going to be a really great gal "up there" in Washington. I vote because I stand behind the actual policy of a particular ticket. At this point, aside from his stance in Iraq and his stance on same-sex marriage I don't know McCain's platform any better than I did before (I can't figure out what the guy is running on, to be frank). I thought Biden did a much better job of actually answering the questions placed before him. And I agree with him. I was especially happy to have him give a solid outline of the exit strategy for Iraq. And I'm pretty sure he knows that the U.S. Commander in Afghanistan isn't McClellan. Oops! (Wink, nod, snap your gum, raise your pom pom) Your mistake, right hon?

59 comments:

Nicole said...

Anna,

Thank you so much for doing this so I don't have to. I think everyone just clicks out when I write political stuff these days.

I (of course) agree with everything you said (especially the better hair/worse blush), but I have to point out that you missed three cons:

1) Did anyone keep track of how many times she ended a sentence with the word "also"? Good grief, she must have said that word twice for every time she said "maverick".

2) Seriously? ANOTHER politician who can't pronounce "nuclear" correctly??? IT'S NU-CLE-AR, not "nucular"!

3) Why is she such a "G" hater? She's always goin', and doin', and thinkin', and helpin'. Maybe it's cute to some people, but to me it reeks as much as people here in Georgia who are "fixin' to do (insert hillbilly activity here) with Momma and Daddy and y'all or all y'all".

Whatevs.

Side note: How touching was that Biden moment where he got all choked up when talking about his children?

Nicole said...

I couldn't do it. I just couldn't keep my mouth shut. You encouraged me Anna, so I will direct all my rage mail your way when it fills my comment box.

You're welcome:)

Christy said...

What is hysterical about this, is I said to Scott several times throughout the debate: Tina will soooo be using that!

Sara K. said...

Gidget! Awesome. I missed the debates a) I have no TV and b) I was taking care of a sick child and c) it was Taylor's Birthday. I'll just have to watch SNL for the recap.

chase said...

I should mention that the phrase "Gidget Goes to Washington" came from a pundit who was responding to her performance. PBS always has the best/funniest mix of pundits!

Pooh said...

OK, I admit that Palin was a bit annoying at times. Sure, she over-did the folksy thing. But I can't believe that no one here noticed that when asked about the bail-out, Joe Biden actually said that not only do he and Obama want to give judges the power to reduce the interest rates that people facing foreclosure are paying on their mortgages, but that they want to give JUDGES the power TO ACTUALLY REDUCE THE PRINCIPLE THAT PEOPLE OWE ON THEIR MORTGAGES. Doesn't anyone actually realize what that means? It means that Joe and Barack want you and I to end up paying, with our tax dollars, for someone to keep the (arbitrary example) $250,000 dollar house they bought with a 3 year, interest-only ARM, when they could have only afforded a $170,000 house with a conventional mortgage. So that person, who gambled on either getting a big fat raise or being able to re-fi when the 3 years was up, and is now facing foreclosure, gets to be rewarded for their stupidity and over-reaching by having their mortgage principle reduced to something they can afford, and we get to pay the difference. Mr. Gambler gets to keep his $250K house and I get to pay for it while I live in my $170K house. Nice. I was so sickened by that I just quit watching. I hate politicians, all of them. But these kinds of political idealogies espoused by the far-left Obama/Biden ticket are why I will still be voting McCain/Palin, even if it's true that Palin "gives Tina a lot to work with."

Nicole said...

Chrysta,

Here's the thing. You and I are already stuck paying for that idiot's mistake one way or another, to the tune of $700 billion.

It's the same argument I use regularly about the health care mess. When I hear people say, "I shouldn't have to use my tax money to pay for someone else to have health insurance", I think they have missed the fact that every time an uninsured person walks into a county ER with a flu because they can't get preventative care, our taxes foot the bill. I would rather that my taxes go to help people get the MUCH CHEAPER and timely preventative care they need than pay for unnecessary ER trips.

My point is, I think we pay the bill either way, and the whole thing is such a disaster that we don't really know how things are going to be worked out anyhow.

Also, I will agree that the majority of home-owners who are in trouble now got in over their heads. But there are some who really did fall victim to predatory lending practices and were not educated enough to know that they were getting screwed by lenders. The banks that issued those loans did so under the economic/deregulation policies that McCain has supported his whole career.

So what's the better option in our national economic crisis --

1)Over-extended homeowner gets foreclosed on, is now homeless, has destroyed credit, and the bank now has another home it is unable to sell = no money in system/credit freeze. Just to get dramatic (because hey, it's me) let's also say that there are several vacant foreclosed homes in your neighborhood. Now your property values are declining even more, and in some neighborhoods, these vacant homes are becoming drug dealer hangouts. This is happening in some cities (Cleveland for sure).

2) Over-extended homeowner goes to judge, gets mortgage basically re-written, stays in home, keeps credit somewhat intact, maintains property and prevents further explosion of supply where there is already a shortage of demand. Several years down the road when homeowner sells home, THE GOVERNMENT TAKES A CUT OF HIS PROFIT to repay some of the deal they issued years earlier. That's the full proposal.

In the past several months, I have come to realize that in most areas of my life, I value practicality over ideology. Do I think a homeowner "bailout" is fair? In most cases, no. Do I think it is at least a decent option in our totally screwed economy that may also give a few people a second chance? You betcha.

Nicole said...

Chrysta and I should be banned from making comments this long. Somebody give us something else to do.

But not cleaning.

Nicole said...

I hate that you can't edit comments without deleting the whole thing...

I just wanted to add that I am not saying the Obama/Biden/Democratic idea was brilliant and foolproof and perfect. It was not, and it failed anyway. But I am not opposed to looking for practical solutions to our massive problem even if it encroaches on the ideal.

chase said...

I actually didn't see the first 30 minutes of the debate, so that's probably why I don't remember that part. Blame it on the kids. But I would agree with Nicole on that one, too.
Overall, I think I was being pretty zingy with my Palin comments. Obviously, they weren't substantive reasons that I'm voting (most likely) Obama this year. But here are the substantive reasons if you're interested.
1. Energy policy. I love Obama's push for new energy development and energy independence. He's got a fire for it and I really think he'll push forward with it. The older I get, the greener I'm becoming. The fact is we can't keep abusing the earth. And the technology is out there to build cleaner, more efficient forms of energy for our homes, cars, etc. And I agree that if we're putting money into this that it will be a huge area for job creation.
2. Raising taxes. Okay, I might sound crazy to some of you, but, personally, I think it's TIME to raise some taxes. Good grief already. Last night Palin was all, "We've got to cut taxes" one minute and then the next minute, "We need to pay teachers more." The fact is that a country as large and complex as ours needs money to survive. I don't want to pay more in taxes but SOMEONE has to! And I think it's ridiculous to say that raising taxes kills jobs. I like that Obama, today at a rally, was able to tie this together with the whole energy issue. If we can put money into new energy sources we'll be creating a lot of new jobs. Tons of new jobs, really, to form a whole new system for supplying energy to our nation. This is more about fiscal responsibility than anything. No doubt that McCain/Palin have some good ideas; however, it’s perplexing to understand from where the funding is going to come.
3. Iraq exit strategy. I'm not saying we should pull out this minute. I don't pretend to have that knowledge/expertise. But I do know that we can't just stay there for an undetermined amount of time. With my tax dollars going there I think I have the right to ask for some plan for withdrawal. I mean, should I start planning for MY sons to go there? I just think that we’re going to get out sooner with, than with McCain/Palin.
4. Overall ticket strength. I think the combination of Biden and Obama provides the right kind of strength/knowledge/leadership ability/experience for me.
5. Finally, Republicans can't get anything done even if they do win. With a Democratic congress in place, John McCain wouldn't be able to push a whole lot through, and Democrats wouldn't be able to push anything past the veto. We'd be stuck at a stalemate with no one getting ANYTHING done! It’s time to give the Dems a chance.

Deb said...

**Warning: Highly emotive post, soap box involved. And there will likely be lots of typos because I'm typing fast at not inclined to be careful or proof it. Read at your own risk.***

Chrysta, I heard that and it was not the first time -- I am peeved each time I hear it. Would I love to have a house with more than 4 square feet of master bathroom, electrical outlets under each window, so on and so forth ... absolutely. But I can afford the house I live in. It burns my muffin that people who couldn't afford their houses bought them anyway and now I have to help them stay there. I understand the concept of predatory lending (I'd love to see some jail time served) and believe there are SOME people who were stupid enough to really be clueless and taken. They are out there. But I think so many more people were eager to find a way to live beyond their means that they were active participants in sealing their fate and creating this mess. I have gotten to the point where I can actually tolerate the thought of renegotiating the terms of their greedy little loans, but reducing their principal is more than I can stomach. Fine, we'll renegotiate your terms so you can afford to stay in your dream house; hope you really, really love it because you'll be paying on it for the next 60 years. Nicole your points are valid and unfortuantely true. But I just can't go that far in my own little mind. We have NO IDEA how many people were actually going to go into foreclosure before the bailout. (Crystal ball, anoyne?) But I'm willing to bet my affordable house that the number of people who take advantage of lowering the price of their home will be far, far, far greater than the number of people who would have actually foreclosed if they didn't have the Get Out Of Jail Free Card. America is not going to learn anything from this fiasco if everyone gets to keep living large knowing that government "always steps in." And we really need to learn our lesson. I still retain my membership in Blondes for Obama, but that one gives me heartburn.

And another thing, stop returning $1000 a year via very expensive "economic stimulus plans." $1000 is not going to change my life (it's in the FDIC-insured bank, actually) or that of the poor (um, hello, who didn't even pay taxes in the first friggin place) in any meaningful way, but it does cost our government plenty to not only pay for but also implement. Stop it already. Once you have my money, it's yours! Go put it toward the deficit that GWBush has so handily crafted. Or maybe put it in my social security fund, so that I'll at least get $1000 when I'm old and decrepit.

And another thing, this so much smells like perception being the reality. Oh, the market will tank if we don't pass it TODAY. Doesn't pass, market tanks. Well, duh, you just told them it should. Don't get me wrong, I understand we are in a recession and ready to go deeper and we must do SOMEthing; but all the GWB/media hype about NOW NOW NOW or doomsday starts tomorrow is insanely irresponsible. How on earth do they balance in their own mind saying, "OK, America, DON'T PANIC -- but if this doesn't happen TOMORROW, the entire world's economy will crumble and you'll loose everything." GAH!

**Thanks, I feel better now.***

Nicole said...

OK. I'll admit that MOST people who would benefit from such a plan (not that it would ever pass congress anyway) would be people who were trying to live outside their means. Maybe I can even concede that adjusting the principle goes beyond what is necessary to keep them in their homes. A lot of people in this mess certainly have children, and I'm sure everyone agrees that little kids should not have to suffer because of what the idiot grown-ups did. The country as a whole is in over its eyeballs and nothing good can come from that.

I guess what I was trying to communicate was that although most people in foreclosure trouble probably deserve to be where they are, the reality of letting things fall where they may could have unpleasant consequences for those of us who are working hard to keep up with all of our financial obligations.

I also think the bailout is a crap idea. It's far easier for me to feel good (albeit hypocritical) about socking it to a huge bank and it's officers who made boatloads of money through this whole thing. I'm sure I am missing some economic principles (and overlooking consequences we don't yet know about) when I say this, but I wish we would have just let them fail. It's like parenting a preschooler -- you can warn all you want, but at some point you have to let them fall and get hurt or they quit taking you seriously. Nobody "tricked" the banks into lending to people who were jobless, and I don't think any of the people who ran these institutions into the ground are going to be living under a bridge.

Anyway, I am sure I am rambling on and on and contradicting myself silly, but I hope that I can get this much across:

I don't think the idea is a "fair" one, but if families can stay in their homes by readjusting the terms and not the principle, I think that is a better solution then letting foreclosures skyrocket more.

Even if this failed idea goes one step too far, at least I feel like they are looking out for the little guy in all of this. There are a million other reasons that I support Obama and Biden, so even if I hated this idea with every fiber of my being, it would not sway my vote.

Deb said...

Amen.

Ben & Diane said...

All you Obama lovers are going to have to forgive me in advance but, ONE of my hugely compelling reasons NOT to vote for Obama(besides the fact that i will always vote republican or not vote) is that he is all for killing babies. Not only does he want to let you have a run of the mill abortion but he wants a woman to have the choice to kill a baby that is born as a failed attempt of an abortion.....after it is born. No, this has nothing to do with the economy. The economy is so messed up that I think if either one of the candidates does something better than what is being done now that it will be an improvement. People who made bad decisions on what house to buy are never gonna learn their lesson if you bail them out. It's one thing if they lose their job and can no longer make the payments, it's another if they shouldn't have bought the house in the first place. Yes Sarah Palin's experience is slim and she is apparently fun to poke fan at. But she is not the one running for president. Obama does not have enough experience and he IS running for president. I don't love alot of things about McCain. I don't love his immigration bill or his bill on campaign funding but I can live with those things to get the things that I do like. So, to give the Obama supporters a fair chance. I suppose that you guys might not like everything about Obama but a vote for him means that you can deal with the things that you don't like and that means you can deal with killing babies. That is sick and wrong. I still love you Anna.

Cris, Jon, Austin and Ethan said...

Anna! this was JUICY! I loved it! And let me tell you how AMAZING tina fey is, I love her. kudos-I've never seen comments this long on anyone's blog!! I love you~ and totally agree.

Chi-townRawlins said...

Wow! Diane. I still love you too:) But, I have to point out that you're actually not completely correct in your assertions. Yes, Obama voted against the Born Alive bill. This is the bill that would have guaranteed life-saving measures to babies born who were the survivors of failed abortions. The act was completely unnecessary because Illinois law already provides that such children receive that life-saving care. He was voting against it to maintain Roe V. Wade. While I'm NOT an advocate of Roe V. Wade, making comments that Obama "wants a woman to have the choice to kill a baby that is born as a failed attempt of an abortion.....after it is born," are not true comments. The women in that instance wouldn't have that choice either way because the Illinois state law that requires them to have care is still in place and hasn't been over-turned (and Obama hasn't tried to get it over-turned either).
The Partial-Birth Abortion Act that he voted against was due to the fact that it made NO PROVISION to the health of the mother! Even in the LDS culture we believe that a woman may use the health of the mother as a deciding factor in choosing abortion! The fact that that Act had no legal way for a women to get an abortion if it would affect her health could - in extreme circumstances - be tantamount to a death sentence.
Now, with all of that said, let me reiterate that I am FIRMLY FIRMLY pro-life. I think that ugly day in 1973 when Roe V. Wade was ruled on was a result of the hard work of the adversary. Abortion, in most cases, is an abomination to God. However I cannot vote based on ONE ISSUE. In the 35 years since Roe V. Wade the Republicans have had office for 23 (4 for Jimmy Carter and 8 for Clinton) and Roe V. Wade still stands. In addition, of the 9 current Supreme Court justices, 7 have been appointed by Republicans and only 2 by Democrats. My point in saying this is that I just don't think Roe V. Wade is going anywhere anytime soon, unfortunately. And I don't think that the next president, blue or red, is going to make much of a difference in this particular arena. I could be wrong, but that's just my take on the matter.

Chi-townRawlins said...

And another thing: Let's talk about voting records for a moment. Voting records get SO MUCH PRESS during election time, and rightly so. It's one of the most concrete ways for us to see someone's track record of actually supporting/being against any one particular policy. But the thing that gets my panties in a wad is that people have a very fallacious thinking about what a vote MEANS. It is simply wrong and incorrect to infer that by voting AGAINST something that the person EMBRACES and UPHOLDS the opposite. When a bill comes to the floor it is so full of provisions and line-items. In order to pass it in good conscience the politician needs to agree with the ENTIRE bill and not just pieces of it. If there is anything in the bill that would be seen as a loophole or fatal flaw (overturn-able by the supreme court) the politician will often vote against that bill simply because it doesn't meet the standard it should. It's all about nuance and details. They could vote against a bill even though they agree with the concept overall. That's where all this business about flip-flopping comes from, and that's how politicians get a reputation as a baby killer. When Barack Obama votes against a bill on banning Partial-Birth Abortion it DOES NOT MEAN that he LOVES and EMBRACES partial-birth abortion. He may disagree with the bill, he may even dislike the bill, heck he may HATE the bill. But to go that step and say that he wants to kill babies? Really? Does that make sense? It's a fallacious argument.

Chi-townRawlins said...

And because I think this horse might have some life left in it, try this link. It's an Obama interview with a Christan magazine and addresses those issues that were mentioned.
http://www.relevantmagazine.com/life_article.php?id=7591

Deb said...

I love how smart you Kilgores are. Unrelated amendments, provisions, etc. can just destroy an otherwise well-written bill. And as a Joe Six Pack American, I had no idea about these slick moves until I started working for a regulated profession, and now I get to experience it first hand. I used to believe the Saturday morning cartoon about the Bill on Capitol Hill and how he becomes a law. It's a myth. A bill that seems like a well-crafted compromise can come along and someone attaches an unrelated (or related, for that matter) amendment that makes it impossible for a legislator to vote for it; or if they do vote for it, they pass something is now partially distasteful. So what are they voting "for" or "against" -- the bill or the add-ons -- when the legislation has become so polluted? To be clear, this is not a Dem vs. Rep thing -- it's equal opportunity crappy behavior. When then they use this stuff as election "fact" regarding voting records, it is such a disservice to Americans. It takes an awful lot of effort to get to the truth and most Americans don't have the time, desire or even knowledge that we need to do it in the first place. Well stated, Anna. You Kilgores are definitely Improving the Gene Pool. And some are even Baracking the Vote. :-)

On another note, be careful calling people sick and wrong regarding things are not black-or-white -- or else I truly am an Obama lover who is FOR killing babies and showing porn to Kindergartners. For the record, I can sleep well at night being pro-choice. I can promise you I do not love abortions, but I certainly would not tell a rape victim or a pregnant woman whose life is in jeopardy that she must have a baby because otherwise it goes against my moral fibers. I can even imagine other situations where unless and until I am walking in their shoes, I would personally keep my mouth shut. That said, I am very thankful for those who are pro-life ... because I believe together we can find a place somewhere in between, which in my opinion, is a better place to be.

Nicole said...

Oh bless you Anna and Deb. I was scrolling down as quickly as I could to correct the comment about Obama being "all about killing babies". That is a hugely polarizing and untrue statement.

Anna said what I was going to attempt but did it better than I probably would have. You HAVE to pay attention to the details of the bills and the existing legislation before leveling such gruesome charges against someone.

And since we opened this door, let me stand with Deb (again) on something. Those of us that are members of the LDS church know that the church allows for abortion in the cases of rape, incest, health of the mother, or unsurvivable defect (missing brain/heart) in baby. If you also believe those are valid (even the ONLY valid) reasons to consider an abortion, you have to concede that abortion must be legal. There has to be a safe place to have one and people who are trained to perform one.

Secondly, while I can't imagine a scenario where I personally would have chosen to have an abortion, I am not about to condemn every woman who has without knowing her circumstances.

It's been said before, but this is not a black and white issue. How about the baby who is carried full term and then dumped in the garbage? Did that woman take the higher ground? How about my cousin who tried to kill her baby in utero by drinking liters of vodka and using buckets of meth so she wouldn't "have to have an abortion"? (Guess what, the baby survived, was born at 31 weeks addicted to drugs, and has severe long term disabilities and a "mother" who has neglected him every day of his 5 year life). Yeah, way better choice. You could argue that she should have given the baby up for adoption. Yes, she should have. But she didn't. Guess why she kept him after he was born? For leverage against family members for drug money. And it has worked. The family has shelled thousands and thousands of dollars out to her to keep him "fed", and despite repeated attempts by the family to get him taken away by CPS, the state of Utah won't do it because she has "maternal rights".

My point is, things are a lot more complicated than "I love babies" or "I think babies should die".

I consider myself pro-choice for these reasons, and because I do not love the idea of opening the door for the government to tell me what to do with my body (organ donation? medical research?). I do NOT think it is something that should be taken lightly -- on the contrary -- it is a sad, sad option that I can't imagine facing.

I think what REALLY needs to be done is to focus on reducing unwanted pregnancies, so that in the words of my fellow Dems, abortions will be legal, safe, and RARE.

Nicole said...

And another thing because I just re-read Diane's comment more carefully --

I don't know you Diane, but for you to call me "sick and wrong" and "okay with killing babies" based on your misinformation makes me physically shake.

I hope that Roe v. Wade NEVER gets overturned by a party who produces people like Sarah Palin, who said that if her daughter were raped and became pregnant, she would make her carry the baby.

THAT is sick and wrong.

Chi-townRawlins said...

Let me just take a moment to say that Diane is a super awesome person and I think that she, like all of us commenting, is just passionate about her point of view. Abortion is SUCH a hot button topic and I didn't really want it to be a topic on my blog because it's one that makes me want to vomit.
So, yeah. Diane rocks. She just has a different opinion from me (and Deb and Nicole) and that's okay.
Heart you, Diane.

Deb said...

I had to Merriam-Webster proselytize. But now I know.

Thanks for starting this exchange, Anna. Someday I might even be able to stomach the idea of negotiating the principal for the good of the world.

I think it would be great if we could just have -- instead of debates -- a televised situation where someone sits with ONE candidate only and says, OK, we understand your position to be X on this issue. Is that correct? (Yes/No) a) If yes ... There appears to be a contradiction on your position via xyz. Can you please clarify that situation/your position? b) If no ... OK then, please lay out your specific position. Go through all the key points one by one until the candidate is satisfied they have given their position in as much detail and clarity and they possibly can. Then we repeat the process for the other candidate. Let's eliminate human nature to argue and twist fact, etc by doing one candidate at a time, and by restricting the discussion to their own positions with no comparison to the other candidate's position, and by agreeing to answer the questions that are actually asked -- understanding that the interviewer is not in "gotcha" mode, but rather "You tell me your detailed platform."

I guess it would sort of be like a moderated town hall meeting, except the whole country can hear it at the same time so it's the same message to all of us. And in this discussion I don't care about if you want your daughters to have the same opportunities as men, or if you were a POW, or what you think about the other candidate's position, blah blah blah. Just tell me what you stand for and clarify anything out there that you feel distorts that stance.

And it would not be a Web site or something else to read, or someone else interpreting what you stand for ... I want to hear it from your mouth, live. I want to judge if I believe you are sincere. I would love that.

Maybe this is already happening. If so, smart people, tell me when and where.

Of course, as soon as it's over, everyone would go back to calling people liars, but at least for that one night, I would feel I had the chance to hear the candidates articulate and explain how they plan to run our great nation.

Nicole said...

Anna,

I am sure (and I really mean this) that Diane is a super nice person. And I can totally respect her differing opinion, because I think that she really means well and has a passion for protecting the innocent.

What I did not respect is being called okay with killing babies/sick and wrong because I am an Obama supporter.

Diane, I am sorry if I got a little too heated. Your closing comment was offensive to me and based on incorrect information. I really mean it when I say I am sure you are a good person.

And Anna, I am sorry for engaging in this kind of debate on your blog. You are right that it is nearly impossible to discuss "calmly".

Nobody wants to kill babies. Period.

Chi-townRawlins said...

Thanks Deb and Nicole for your responses, and thanks Nicole for clarifying. Diane is quite great. And until today I had no idea she was so strongly opinionated:) And I had no idea you were either, Deb and Nicole. Paint me shocked! ;)
Deb, I love your idea and I don't think it's happening anywhere. You wanted to get published this year, right? Probably a good place to start.
Nicole, I think you're right that this is one of those issues that cannot be discussed without emotion playing into it. Everyone knows someone who experienced something relevant on each side of the issue. We all come to the table with all sorts of built-in biases and ideas about what is right or wrong.
So, with that said I'm bowing out of this comment-discussion. Please feel free to continue as long as it stays fair and respectful.
In addition, please remember that there are two more debates coming up and you may want to save your ammo, also, too.
That is all.

Ben & Diane said...

I want to respond to this debate in a way that will make you guys not think I am a moron or a hateful person. I think that what is happenong here is my definition of abortion has been misunderstood. Yes, I am LDS. And Yes, I believe the church's stance on the issue is very pro-life. Yet, they allow for abortions in cases of rape, incest, and possible death of the mother. I do believe you can be pro-life and still agree with someone having an abortion in those instances. However, I still think that you can be a Democrat and still vote for the born alive act. Hilary Clinton did it. This is my point. I do not believe that a vote in favor of the act means that you want to overturn Roe v. Wade. I personally don't think that roe v. wade will ever be overturned no matter hhat political party is in the majority. I think that to believe that a woman should be able to abort a baby that was concieved through rape is different from any woman across the board being able to abort a baby at any stage of pregnancy even up until the last couple of weeks. To me there is a big difference in chosing to abort a baby early in a pregnancy and late in a pregnancy. And yes, I do think that letting a child that didn't die during an abortion that is old enough to survive just lay there and die, IS sick and wrong. I have a problem with the idea that there is no reason why a woman can not have an abortion. I would be in complete favor of a bill that states abortion is legal for the reasons the church thinks you should have one. I also don't believe that Obama voted against it just to uphold roe v. wade. He was the only verbal opponent of the born alive act and has said that what it would do is place another burden on the woman and he would not suoppport that. Let me cry you a river. What about consequences for your actions.I do think that a woman has the right to choose. She has the right to choose to practice safe sex. And if she still gets pregnant, she has the right to choose to get over herself for 9 months and choose to give that child a good life through adoption. NO, I don't think that children should have to pay for their parents' actions. That is why I am a HUGE supporter of adoption. And No, I do not think the woman who leaves her baby to die in a trash can took the higher ground. I think that that woman or teenager had nine months to prepare to have that child and decide what to do once it is born just like I did with my 3 children. In fact, that person should spend time in prison for that. There is no way that someone would not know that they are pregnant and a baby could just surprisingly come out. Give me a break. I do not think this issue is black and white but I think we could have alot less grey area. I also sometimes wonder if those children that were aborted will ever have the opportunity to get a body since their chance was taken away. I don't know.

Nicole said...

Diane, I understand where you are coming from. I have counter-arguments for a few things you said, but I am also bowing out of this discussion on Anna's blog.

I do not think you are a moron or a hateful person. This is a difficult issue no matter where you stand, and I respect your opinion.

(Okay, just one thing I can't ignore -- I want to re-state that NOBODY is in favor of letting a baby that survives an abortion die, and that the law ALREADY protects that baby. Lifesaving measures are (and should be!) provided. If that were not the case, I would whole-heartedly agree with you and loudly proclaim SICK AND WRONG.)

Deb said...

And see, that is why I brought up just being careful with harsh "labels (for lack of thinking of a better word at this moment) ... because, I consider myself pro-choice but with limitations; and others consider themselves pro-life, but with exceptions ... and it seems we're all ending up in the same place, or pretty darn close. (And I'm not even LDS.)

Golly, this just goes to show you how "tone" isn't always conveyed in print -- because I certainly didn't intend to be "strongly opinionated" in my comment; rather in my mind I sounded very calm and librarianish, while giving full disclosure of my position for fairness-sake, just trying to point out we're all a lot closer in our beliefs than our “pro-“ positions would imply, and that the balance of opinions from each side will lead us to a place the majority can tolerate. You should also know that I'm taking pseudoephedrine as we speak.

Also I went into this discussion believing that Diane is a fantastic person -- being that Anna likes her. But I'm sorta fantastic, also too, though. And so are the others posting comments here. :-) That's my point. That's all. The end.

P.S. There's going to be some major Christmas Football tackling, I'm thinking.

Deb said...

Oh, goodie! I guess this means I got the last word. Rock on.

Chi-townRawlins said...

(Bowing back in)
Deb, does this mean we get another "Pseudo-sleeping" post? Please say yes...

Ben & Diane said...

I have to say that I posted my 2nd comment before the last 6 or 7 were posted and did not see them before I posted mine. Thank you Anna for defending me. I too think you are the coolest and that is why I spend my time checking your blog because I care about you and your family. And I really like and respect you.

Just to clarify, I did not mean for anyone to think I was calling them sick and wrong. The idea of abortion in certain terms is what is sick and wrong, in my opinion.

I never debate things to hurt people's feelings and that certainly was not my intention. This whole political season and election process has brought out emotions in people that have never been seen before.

There are liars and hypocrites on both sides and all we can do is have good reasons for the way we feel and go and vote.

Deb and Nicole and Anna too, sorry if you guys took my comments to heart and thought that I was personally attacking you. I felt like I was simply stating my opinion, much like you guys were.

I have a feeling you all think I am incredibly closed-minded but much to the contrary I try to stay open to many things.

Anna....I know secretly in front of your mirror you can do a grwat Sarah Palin impression.

Pooh said...

This divisiveness among normally even-keeled and perfectly lovely people is why I hate politics and politicians.

I LOVE LOVE LOVE Deb's idea about a non-debate for each candidate. One if the big reasons (aside from Biden's "lower the principle" thing that I still cannot stomach, no matter how "practical" it may seem) I quit watching the debate was that I could see how both candidates were citing "facts" that were in FACT half-truths or truths taken so far out of context that they became so twisted as to be unrecognizable. MAYBE there would be half a chance for us to make a truly informed decision if the candidates didn't have 90 seconds each to try to respond to each other's pseudo-facts in such a way as to discredit them.

All campaigns twist and distort the truth, both about themselves and about their opponents. One of the biggest reasons I was so disappointed in Mitt Romney's campaign was that he did it, too. Not just his campaign, but from his own mouth. I expected better from a man who had been a stake president. But I guess that's just one more indication that we have to have a testimony of the GOSPEL and not of the membership.

However, I do have a firm testimony, though, of the membership, especially the Fuglies, of the UMC. Also, too, I love you guys.

Also.

Too.

Amen.

Deb said...

Posting again just to maintain my last word status.

:-)

Actually, I am SICK SICK SICK and I'm peeved about it. Anna, I know you hear me speaking directly to your heart. I've coughed myself so silly that I've vomited twice today. (You're welcome for sharing.) And with just 10 days until my 60-miles, I am even more SUPER DUPER PEEVED beyond words to be sick sick sick. So I'm taking vitamin C (1000% daily recommended dose, 3 times daily); zinc (I have no idea how much, several lozenges daily); Airborne fizzy tabs (what is even in that stuff?); AND iburprophen with pseudoephedrine (and we all know what that does to me.) I am probably toxic. But whatever it takes for this not to be one of those lingering 2-week colds ... ecause that would just be sooo unfair. Waaaaaaaaaaaa...

Chi-townRawlins said...

Deb! Enough commenting about it. BLOG IT OUT, sista! Stop being all Stephenie Meyer on us and giving us your opening lines while leaving us hanging. When I tune into your blog in the next 24 hours I'd better see the most incoherent, yet perfectly sensible blog I've ever read.
And make it funny.
Also, too, you may want to consider leavin' out the "g's" from your words.
Word.

Deb said...

Last.

Nicole said...

Dude, Anna, is this a record for you comment wise?

How long until Deb "last's" again?

I'm betting 17 minutes...

Deb said...

I'm thinking this could lead to Anna shaving her head?

Chi-townRawlins said...

Deb! Haven't you seen any of my recent pics? I'm pretty close to a shaved head already.

Deb said...

I'm in it to win it.

Pooh said...

Well, I thought I'd better jump in here because you all know I'm such a maverick.

Chi-townRawlins said...

Chrysta! BWAHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH!!!!!
Abso-freakin-lutely hilarious.
This is starting to feel like ebay. Only there's no time limit! Just watch Christy is gonna jump in and school all y'all.
DEB! WHAT ARE YOU DOING READING THIS? DID I OR DID I NOT GIVE YOU AN ASSIGNMENT?! NOW GO TAKE SOME DRUGS AND WRITE ME SOMETHING GOOD.

Christy said...

Go CANADA!

Pooh said...

Oh Christy! You're so lucky you have a good excuse not to vote in this election... Go Canada, indeed!

Brian, Jeni, Nat, and Stephen said...

anna!! so many comments-48??!! but really you are brilliant and I am actually wanting to lean towards obama because of her.

Nicole said...

Chrysta,

I am dying to know if you fell off the couch at MCCAIN'S "change the mortgage to reflect the new home value" comment. That was the first I had heard of that from the Republicans. I'll stand by my "flip-flop" that reducing the principle may be one step too far, but now I wonder if it will happen regardless?

Nicole said...

I want to make sure I clarify here that I am really not trying to sound snide or sarcastic or rude. I was literally sitting with my mouth open when I heard him say that, and I really do wonder what you (or anyone else reading this) think about Repubs now saying they will renegotiate mortgages to reflect current home values.

Jay and Sherrie said...

Okay, so I ended up here out of curiosity from Nicole's blog. I wanted to see Chrysta's more serious comment.

I just wanted to comment on Nicole's question about McCain's comment last night. It upset me, but it doesn't really matter what either candidate says on this issue because the bill that just passed already gives our government the right to reduce interest rates, reduce loan principal , or other similar modifications. It makes me sick to my stomach, but there is nothing we can do about it.

Chi-townRawlins said...

I haven't actually seen the debate from last night. I'm hoping to catch it on NBC.com or youtube so that I can get my witty synopsis up. But I'm not surprised that John McCain was also supporting such ideas. I honestly think this is going to be a huge crowd pleaser overall. I'm starting to think that regular guys like us who get the responsible fixed-rate 30-year mortgages are a dying breed! I know lots of people who have done some of the more creative loans, and hopefully they aren't in trouble, but it speaks to how popular the trend is.

Pooh said...

Yes, I saw it and I about fell off the couch. But I have to say that although I don't like it, at least refinancing mortgages to reflect a home's current value seems like a less arbitrary and more across-the-board fair way to go about it than to give the principle-reducing power to judges, who may or may not implement the policy fairly. Just MO.

After watching last night's debate, I stand by my earlier comment about hating politics because they all twist the facts to meet their definition of the "truth." There is so much disinformation out there, and statistics and studies can be bent to whatever political whim is in fashion, that I don't know what the truth is anymore. I can't stand it.

Sara said...

I don't really have anything to add, I just wanted to be comment #50.

Nicole said...

I agree that both candidates (and all politicians, really) twist and skew facts all over the place. I have come to LOVE FactCheck.org because they are non-partisan and really give you the nitty gritty behind all these claims.

If you want to know the truth, I think it's a great resource, and it's easily searchable for whatever questions you have. Or you can just browse it, if you are looking for another reason to avoid housework.

Pooh said...

Also.

Nicole said...

Do we know that it won't be judges making the decisions? I can't seem to find any concrete information except for what Sherrie already said (in the actual bill). As far as I can tell, we know NOTHING yet about who will benefit, who will execute these modifications, and if they will be tailored specifically to each family or done with firm guidelines across the board.

I don't yet see the difference between what Biden said and what McCain said -- it seems to me that they are both extrapolating whatever they want from a bill with little in the way of specifics. Either one could have his way on this one. Anyone know something I don't?

Chi-townRawlins said...

Hmmm...I don't know the specifics of the bill, but I DID just get something in the mail that said I was a guaranteed winner of $4,000,000. Could they be related? Another economic stimulus package perhaps?

Deb said...

I win.

Pooh said...

You're such a maverick, Bed.

Deb said...

LOL. I'm also very patient.

Pooh said...

Funny, so am I...

;)

Deb said...

I win.