For awhile it looked like Hillary Clinton could be the presidential candidate or later the vice presidential candidate. She is no longer on the ballot but low and behold Sarah Palin is the vice presidential running mate for John McCain.

Without arguing politics, do you think the world is ready for the United States to have a woman in such a high office? From a personal point because I know my abilities, I feel a woman would do the job just fine. But since I am from the U.S. I don't know what other's views of women leaders really are. Are those positions still really better off being held by a guy?

Hugs,
Marsha

Hi Marsha: I think the world is ready for a woman president,and yes the right woman will do a great job. Its hard not to bring politics into the discussion though,as Sarah Palin seems like a good person but is to far right. A woman who has a problem with freedom of choice and also rolling back gay and transgender freedoms would be a bad thing for the USA.
You can be a Woman and still make strong tactical desission's.If you look at Magie Thatcher Ex UK Primeminister, She is still the only world leader to give the order for a nuclear sub to sink another ship..
Hugs Jane

I definitely agree that the right man for the job can easily be a woman, but don't feel that Sarah Palin is the right woman.

Marsha
Good question, women do make good leaders. I've worked with women bosses quite well. Then again I've worked with women bosses who shouldn't have been in that position. So the individual does count.
Unfortunately, here in the USA party politics rules and I don't think they're ready yet.
Margaret Thatcher has been mentioned as an example. Just look at the abuse she received..."iron lady" for one. We have many governors, senators and representatives on both state level and federal level(not govs). They do a good job on the whole. Seems as if they don't get involved in sex scandals as their male counterparts do.
hugs
Gracie

In the case of Sarah Palin, I see the main issue not as one of gender, but of religion in politics.

She makes no secret that her political views are largely driven by her involvement in her Pentacostal church, a pretty extreme Christian sect, going so far as to characterize the war in Iraq as a holy crusade, "part of god's plan."

In another language, this attitude might translate to "jihad."

The idea of religion driving government policy is directly inconsistent with the vision of the founders of our system of government, as specifically indicated in our Constitution.

Palin's selection as a running mate was a transparent effort on the part of the McCain campaign to court the disaffected Hilary voters, regain the support of the extreme religious right and to access the oil resources in Alaska.

So far, this ploy appears to be working to some degree, but it remains to be seen whether they can sustain this enthusiasm til election day. It's a good bet that the Democrats are working hard to discredit Palin, and when push comes to shove, I don't really think she has the ability to compete in the arena of high profile national politics. I feel it's only a matter of time before she says or does something that will alienate a large portion of the McCain support base.

Isn't it hypocritical to say the reason against Palin is because of religion in politics?

The Senate passed a proposal calling for an international conference on dividing up Iraq. It is Biden's proposal and it calls for dividing up Iraq based on race and religion. Obama did not vote, what's new.

So if religion in politics is ok for democratic candidates like Joe Biden, why are they wrong for republican candidates like Sarah Palin. Besides, that is why there are checks and balances with the house and senate.

P.S. Biden was able to get all the Iraqi groups to agree on something. They all thought the idea was a nightmare and wonder why he is the V.P. candidate.

Hugs,
Marsha

The plan to which you refer pertains to the governing of Iraq, not the US.

I will absolutely not budge, not compromise, not concede any aspect of my assertion that NO religion in ANY form or denomination has ANY place in American government.

The Constitution is very clear on this. So many people point to freedom of religion as the impetus behind the foundation of our country, but few recognize that freedom of religion can also mean freedom FROM religion.

To maintain that the war in Iraq is some kind of holy Christian crusade makes anyone who makes that claim no better than the jihadist terrorists cited in the Bush administration's lies as the reason American men and women are shedding their blood on foreign soil.

The fact that Clinton, Obama and Palin have all played major roles in this current General Election clearly demonstrates that race and gender are no longer factors with regard to choosing our leaders.

Anyone who supports or opposes Ms. Palin's candidacy should be doing so based entirely on her politics, not her gender.

I don't think giving the order to a nuclear submarine to sink another ship, which at the time was sailing away from the designated conflict zone and posed no military threat, and which was to cost hundreds of lives, is a recommendation. I despise Thatcher and will raise a glass when she dies. She did nothing to promote women, passed anti-gay and anti-transgender laws, put millions of people out of work, ruined Britains manufacturing base, and destroyed the social fabric of the country. I can only hope that's not a typical example of a woman in power. It's interesting that Cory Aquino and Indira Gandhi were mentioned, one was corrupt, the other assassinated. I watched the party conventions and there is no doubt Sarah Palin electrified the Republican convention and gave a great speech. I'm not sure about her appeal to the average American woman-a gun toting, animal killing, anti-gay, anti-abortion, Creationist. Indeed that is where religion does come in. It is not that she is religious, or adheres to one of the mainstream faiths. I know religion plays an important role in American politics, unlike in Britain where it is the kiss of death - but she is a Creationist!!! It is like Robyn said - it is about the individual. The problem with women in power, in the workplace and beyond, is that they feel they have to out-masculine the men. Just consider Palins reference to a pit-bull with lipstick. Her appeal will wane once the novelty wears off. Now if they were to nominate a transgendered person that would be interesting.

Porscha, I couldn't agree more with your views on Maggie Thatcher. The point i was making is a woman can be the same as a man when in a position of power. Not that the decisions will be any better.
Male or Female when in office you should leave your own view point at the door, and represent All the people, not just the few who vote for you. (And yes i live in lala land)

But it does pertain to the U.S. Robyn. Biden is a devout catholic who says in his own personal life he is anti abortion, but does not feel it is his place to speak for those in other religions. Yet here he is willing to tell Iraq to split up based on religion. Can you honestly say religion is not on his mind. Then there are the Obama's who have attended Rev Wright's church for 20 years and now because it is politically correct no longer agree with him. 20yrs is a long time to sit there like an idiot listening to stuff you "supposedly" disagree with. Get real. Rev. Wright is about as anti-american, anti-white, as they come. There must have been something that Obama liked to keep him around for 20 years. And you want to not budge from your postion that Palin is too religous. LOL.

Hugs,
Marsha


Hugs,
Marsha

Fact is, I agreed with many of Rev. Wright's remarks. That he is something of a buffoon is true, and it's easy to see how he became an embarrassment to the Obamas. Surely, there isn't a politician in America who doesn't make some pretense of religious practice. The church is a valuable place to attract support. This emphasizes the role of the church as a powerful social institution, but there is a difference between the church as a social institution and religion as the arbiter of public policy.

The ages old tribal and sect violence in places like Iraq is a good example of what can happen when religion is integrated into a system of government. These sect conflicts are probably the motivation behind the proposal to preserve the peace in Iraq by designating regions based upon religious lines. After we (hopefully soon) vacate the region, the Iraqis will probably go back to whatever it was they were doing before we interrupted them anyway, and in the final analysis, how much does the average American care about the average Iraqi? We've got serious troubles of our own.

Ostensibly, this discussion is about American politics, though, and the role of religion in American government. The very intent of the First Amendment is to preserve religious plurality by preventing any one religion from becoming the state religion. Separation of church and state is key to the preservation of the vision of the framers of our Constitution.

Ms. Palin's characterization of the war in Iraq as "part of god's great plan" indicates an intolerance of diverse religious views that is unacceptable from someone who hopes to stand on the Capitol steps on January 20 and swear to uphold the Constitution of the United States of America.

One thing for sure, if the McSame/Palin ticket wins this election, the morning of November 5th will find me on the doorstep of the Dutch Embassy applying for political asylum.

Robyn
I'm with you although I think Canada is closer plus there's no language problem. I threaten to leave whenRonny was elected - missed my chance.
Hugs
Gracie

Robyn and Mary, lol, if I had the extra money I would pay for your one way ticket. Atleast with the internet we could still chat and share thoughts here.

And Robyn I honestly question your understanding of religion if you think the use of "part of god's great plan" indicates an intolerance of diverse religious views that is unacceptable from someone who hopes to stand on the Capitol steps on January 20 and swear to uphold the Constitution of the United States of America. Most religions believe everything that happens is part of God's plan. I think Al-Qaeda does things in the name of Allah, is that more acceptable to you?

According to a July 2008 ABCNEWS.com poll, 83% of americans identified as Christian. Source:
http://abcnews.go.com/sec[...]18.html Maybe somehow you just happened to be born in the wrong country if you can't handle religion in politics. And before you go off the wall about the constitution and separation of church and state, at no time did Sarah Palin say she was going to make all americans convert to Assemblies of God. The true meaning of separation of church and state means the state shall not establish a religion such as the Church of England. Nowhere does it say a politicians cannot have religious views. I definitely don't have any issues with a religious politician.

Hugs,
Marsha

I'm sorry Marsha, but your 'true meaning' of the separation of church and state is inaccurate.

The phrase "separation of church and state" is derived from a letter written by Thomas Jefferson in 1802 to a group identifying themselves as the Danbury Baptists. In that letter, referencing the First Amendment to the United States Constitution, Jefferson writes:

"Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between Man & his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legitimate powers of government reach actions only, & not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should "make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof," thus building a wall of separation between Church & State."


"make no law respecting an establishment of religion,"

means that no law should be made with respect to one religious establishment. It is not talking about establishing a religion.

and I'm afraid that what Sarah Palin tries to do time and time again

Ms. Palin's meaning was very clear, indeed. It is every bit as unacceptable for her to invoke her god in the context of the illegal war in Iraq as it is for Al Qaeda to commit acts of violence in the name of their god.

Anyone who doesn't think that Sarah Palin and her ilk wish to impose their religious and other views on Americans to their own gain is seriously deluded.

It's true that the idea of the COE was the impetus behind the First Amendment, but the idea and implementation remain the same. Religious ideas of any kind must be kept out of American government.

The statistic that 83% of all Americans identify as Christian is irrelevant. This figure does not reflect how many respondents are actually practicing Christians. Did the survey include any statistics concerning the last time those questioned actually attended services? Further, the fact that 83% of Americans identify as Christian, just as importantly indicates that 17% do not.

Whether or not the candidate is generally religious is not necessarily an issue. When it becomes an issue is when religious ideas are introduced into the American political process. Palin did this almost immediately upon entering the campaign, even before her specific religious affiliation was revealed by the press.

Had she invoked the name of allah, buddha or visnu during campaign related rhetoric, it would have been just as wrong. Religion is fine, but one's religion is an individual and personal relationship with their perception of a higher power, and it needs to remain personal.

I generally observe that the more a candidate has to say about god, the less they have to say about substantive issues. It seems a common practice to use religion to obfuscate another issue.

I would also go so far as to propose that any transgender person who intends to support the McSame/Palin ticket is seriously misguided.

The issue of seperation between church and state has always been a thorny one in the U.S.
However, although a staunch secularist myself, I do not think it is entirely appropriate to project this ideal into places like Iraq where there traditionally has been no such thing (with of course, the exception of the late 19th and 20th century Arab nationalist movements of which Saddam Hussein was a part) and then to condemn Biden out of hand. Since the rise (and fall) of the Caliphs and later the Turkish sultans, religion in the middle east has not just been an inner conviction of metaphysical ideals, but also something with outer social and political implications. Religion and politics are traditionally one and the same. Every religious group had its own traditions, laws and ways of dealing out justice in the Ottoman empire (of which Iraq was a part before the empire's demise). As long as the religious minorities (Armenian Christians, Greek Orthodox Christians, Jews etc) acknowledged the Sultan as supreme political leader, they were basically free to lead their own autonomous courts and keep their own laws. Christians solved their disputes in Christian courts and Jews in Jewish courts (except in criminal cases or when one or more of the parties was Muslim). So to politically divide Iraq into autonomous religious groups is not only a continuation of Iraqi history, but quite a natural one in that part of the world too.
Democracy can (and should) be adaptable to the various cultures of the world. I'm not saying that one form of democracy is better than another, but rather that before we go condemning people for setting up democracies that don't quite resemble our own, one must always remember the social and cultural context of the people. Besides, Britain and Denmark have no separation between church and state. Admittedly the Churches of England and Denmark are so moderate that they go so far as to change their doctrines to keep their membership, but the point is that vibrant democracies don't necessarily have to resemble French laicité either.

Religion has to kept out of politics. God can be invoked to legitimise any cruel and unjust act where no other justification can be found. If I were an American, I wouldn't vote for John McCain because I don't agree with his politics. However, I think he is a brave and honourable man with the courage of his convictions. His choice of Sarah Palin though is beyond the pale. A truly scary woman. Any transgendered, transsexual, gay, or other marginalised person who may have been considering voting Republican will surely have to think again. She adheres to a religious faction that given free rein would burn us at the stake, or have us neutered, or subject us to electric shock treatment to rid us of our sinful ways. The separation of Church and State should be total. After all, as long as we have a master in Heaven we will always be slaves on earth.

I put this post on the other SP thread, but it might be better here

http://www.ontheissues.or[...]lin.htm

for the record when taking the quizz, I'm a liberal populist or a hard-core liberal depending on the set of questions.

This is really great. I don't mind hearing your opinions and everyone is entitled to their own. lol, me to.
I'm not sure where to start in my replying. I will start with Anne's post about what Sarah Palin supports. Yeah I support all that too. Surprised?

As far as this idiotic idea that how can a religious person support Sarah Palin or the republicans, that is so full of garbage. Number one it lets me know you are clueless about the Bible and that there are incredible numbers of TG who are Christians attending church. The bible makes no comment on transgendered. I attend a church with a weekly ATTENDANCE of 4-5000, the church knows about me and accepts me. I'm sure there are members that might not like me, but that is life.

And what is so wrong about the possibility of a vice president maybe having some morals based on her religious beliefs. Let's see, I know Robyn smokes marijuauna and Anne seemed to be concerned Sarah Palin was against that, give me a break, you are already screwed up if you feel you need that stuff at this stage of your life. All your problems are someone elses fault. Maybe you need to look in the mirror. If not, I guess you like the embarrassement of our President getting blowjobs in the oval office. Somehow you make it sound like Sarah Palin will be preaching from the White House steps, lol, get real and stop smoking your drugs.

Somehow you believe just because someone goes to church and talks about God, they want bad things for society. Get a life. If you want a socialist government, then move to a socialist country. But stop putting your hand out because i'm tired of working hard just to put something in your lazy pocket because you are jealous I have something. Poor people are poor because they keep doing the same things that made them poor in the first place. And yes, CEO's deserve the big bucks.

Hugs, Love you all,
Marsha

Here is how much Obama likes helping other people out. He only gave 6.1% to charities in 2007. SOURCE: http://taxprof.typepad.co[...]es.html
John McCain gave 27.3% to charities in 2007. SOURCE; http://taxprof.typepad.co[...]es.html
So mean republicans just don't do much for anyone. Compared to?
I give to charities and my church, do you give or take?
Hugs,
Marsha

At first, I thought I had missed a post concerning a question as to whether religious individual's support for Palin would be incosistent, but then quickly realized it must have been a typo.

Of course, the topic was whther a transgender Palin supporter would be misguided. A point that I made, and to which I still adhere.

To qualify this statement, I would point to the philosophy of the sect to which Ms. Palin subscribes is vehemently opposed to the idea of body modification. Tattoos, piercings and such. Well, I can't think of a more extreme body modification than lopping off Mr. Happy, so one can assume what the approach of this group would be to such an idea.

Oddly enough, just this morning, I testified in ajudication in a workplace case today involving the termination of the supervisor who hired me, myself and my partner that was motivated by the religious beliefs of an HR staff member who attend the self same church as Palin (well, the Richmond group anyway).

There are those of us who have been working hard in Washington, DC for the last few years to win basic civil rights for gender variant Americans, notably the Employment Non Discrimination Act. We are only now beginning to gain a foothold as an autonomous political identity on Capitol Hill, and have secured commitments from ample representatives to push this legislation through in 2009.

What do you suppose will be the outcome of that bill if it ends up on John McCain's desk? Any trans American should be standing shoulder to shoulder to prevent another four years of blatant, hostile discrimination against ANY American.

Mara Kiesling, Vanessa Edwards Foster, Riki Wilchens, Denise Leclair, Ethan St. Pierre, Andrea James. These people are my colleagues and my friends. All of them have worked tirelessly in the effort to make the American dream a reality for ALL Americans, not just those who subscribe to a particular system of beliefs.

Obama is the clear choice fopr trans voters, in my opinion.

Please forgive the typos in my previous post. I guess that's what happens when I try to write this stuff while I'm stoned!!!!!!!!!!!!

I do understand what you are saying Robyn and you are very welcome to have your opinion. I think back with ENDA I expressed my opinion that it is a worthless law anyways.

Although I consider myself conservative and typically vote republican, I do not like the extreme christian right. I believe abortion should be the woman's choice. I wish there was no need for abortions but until that day I hope women choose wisely. The point i'm trying to make is even religous republicans vary in opinion and it is wrong to judge anyone solely on their religion.

In the end I believe in the checks and balances of our representative form of government. I believe if a bill/law is in the peoples best interest then there would be enough votes to override a veto. When votes only have a minimum approval they leave the door open for change down the road. If JFK was running for president I would vote for a democrat, but the current democrats are far too extreme. The democrat party has been hijacked by the far left who lean toward communism and socialism. As conservative as I am, I did vote for Clinton the first time. In the end he was lucky and rode through on the technology revolution. Bill Gates did more for the world during that period than Bill Clinton.

I don't think George Bush has done a good job but I am not about to hold Iraq against him. America's presence in the middle east is critical to the world. For the right or wrong reason to go in, at some point it had to be done. George Bush's problem was he liked to spend other peoples money. I believe in conservative economic policy which Bush in noway followed. The liberal approach involves too much government which has been proven to be inefficient. I don't trust the democrats to get things in fiscal order and until that can be done we don't need more government social programs.

My opinion, hugs,
Marsha

Personally, I feel the whole lot of them deserve to be strung up, Democrats, Republicans, the whole stinkin' lot.

However, as this is not an option currently, and the Republicans have had a turn. During that time, they've turned the surplus left by the Clinton administration into a staggering defecit that continues to grow unchecked, jobless rates are at an all time high, the American manufacturing base is crumbling under outsourcing, major financial institutions are collapsing and Johnny still can't read. The rich are far richer, the poor are far poorer, and the middle class is joining the ranks of the poor in droves.

At this point, the best choice we can make is the lesser of two evils. There isn't going to be any success for a Ron Paul or a Ralph Nader this time around, and my fiscal sense says we're throwing good money after bad in Iraq when we need to be looking after America. John McCain represents continued military presence and irresponsible military spending that we simply can no longer afford.

Obviously, something in their approach is not working.

I just see Obama as more sensible on those issues that directly affect us as Americans, families, individuals.

As for religion. My views are in no way intolerant of religion. Nor do I feel that the Christian faith is inconsistent with the transgender community. Strong trans activists like Anne Marie Knittel, Pauline Brent and Nancy Jo Morris are all driven by their faith, but at the same time, they believe strongly in civil rights for trans Americans.

Again, I am not at all intolerant of religion. It has its place in the personal life of any individual who chooses to believe anything they wish and the church can be a powerful social institution. At the same time, though, as far as public policy goes, I will say again that the role of the church as social institution has to stop there, lest religion become the arbiter of public policy affecting everyone, regardless of their belief. All I would like to see is that the same tolerance afforded religion be extended to tolerance of no religion.

It wasn't really about marijuana. It was about the inconsistancy of her using it when it was legal in Alaska and then voting against it later on. It suggests pragmatic voting over a belief in something.

And you're right Marsha, you make your own choices based on oyur own political opinions. But we all give a biased view based on who we're for and who we're against (it doesn't overly bother me as I'm british anyway) So I thought it worthwhile to put the link through to the ontheissues website as it does give a better idea of her stance based on her speeches and voting records.

On the other thread I started picking out contentious issues from the list, but in hindsight I decided that out of context it wouldn't be fair and my definition of contentious is not necesarily anyone elses. I thought it worthwhile there as it was as part of a larger discussion about the racist / sexist voting mindset, and would be worthwhile looking behind the obvious differences for their political views.

Not being an american I needed some reference (and Wikipedia can be too biased to get a full picture)

anyway to answer on other point you make "And what is so wrong about the possibility of a vice president maybe having some morals based on her religious beliefs."

nothing, so long as in a country that separates church from state and actively promotes religious freedom that none of her decisions/policies actually promote one religious view at the expense of another.

it's the difference between voting to teach creationism alongside evolution (which is such a christian belief viewpoint rather than any moral stance) as opposed to, say, her pro-life stance, which (whilst I disagree with) could be considered a moral stance irrespective of christian or any other religious teachings.

Thanks Robyn and Anne for being part of this thread. I don't profess knowing all the answers or being right. Actually I think in a perfect world government wouldn't be needed, but realistically it would never happen. I will stop short of calling politicians corrupt, but it definitely teeters on the edge. I think it comes down to the politicians believe they can take better care of us than we can ourselves. That may be true for some people who like the security of someone else making the decisions, however, there are others such as myself that feel I can take care of myself. Is either of those right or wrong, not really. In the end we try to align ourselves with the politicians that reflect what we want in our lives.

I may disagree with someone's politics, but I don't like them any less for what they believe. I hope we can laugh about our differences and walk away agreeing to disagree.

Hugs,
Marsha

No one brought up the fact that the current Speaker of The House, Nancy Pelosi, (a liberal Democrat) is potentially the most powerful woman in American politics today.

She is second in the order of succession (right after Dick Cheney) for the Presidency of the United States, if something were to happen to President George W. Bush before his term is over. Unlikely to happen, but that is the official order of succession.

b.t.w.,
President pro tempore of the Senate, Robert Byrd, (also a Democrat) follows Nancy Pelosi in the order of succession.

As far a religion and politics go, they should be kept exclusively separated, but we all know that will never happen. Therefore we will never see an atheist in the Whitehouse. In most people's opinion it seems, we atheists are lower than scum, even lower than GLBT's. Imagine what it must be like to be trans, and an atheist.

Nicole
There's still time to impeach both Pres and VP - but I don't expect that to happen.
Allow me to cheer you up - atheists are much better than the zealots (take your pick) we have had to endure.
I once heard a rabbi say that "If christian would act christian the world would be a better place." But that doesn't seem to be happening either.
hugs
Gracie

Help!!! Our government has been hijacked by extreme right wing christian fanatics. That aside, I am of the opinion that if anybody votes republican, there is something wrong with their thought processes. Are you telling me that you are in support of a war that is based on a lie? We have no right being in Iraq. Afghanistan, yes. Iraq, no way. The war crimanal Bush was so hell bent on getting Saddam, he let bin ladin get away. Hold on please, my hiato hernia is causing nausia, twist twist, whipping out my bic, flicking my bic, puff, puff. Now, I'm no Christan, I was forced to go to church every Sunday until I turned 16 and ran away from home. Being the individual that I am, I refused to follow blindly a church, the christan church, and learned one thing in the process. They are hypocrites. Oh, they say, we love all of Gods children, unless they are gay or lesbians and lets not forget the transgendered, and while we're at it lets not love the Hindu's and Muslims. This is what I have experienced with christans. I thought we were all Gods children. Yeah, I know how the Christan mind works, I know the christan mindset well. Puff, puff. Ahhh, the nausia is finally subsiding. I could say a few things about drunks and alcohol, a hard drug that does far more damage than a herb your God put on this planet, for us to use as we see fit. Puff, puff. As for this Sarah Palen, in my eyes, she is a nut case and does not need to be leading our country. That is if Macain gets elected and doesn't make it through his term. For crying out loud, she's already talking about going to war with Russia. Have the republicans even talked about getting off of our oil addiction. Absolutely not. They would have us believe that drilling for more oil will be our salvation. At least Obama is discussing getting off of oil and finding new energy sources. All palen wants is what big oil wants. A continued presence in Iraq is only hurting this country in the eyes of the world. We had every right to go to Afghanistan but have no business in Iraq. Oil is the only reason our men and women are being slaughtered, far from home and loved ones. Let's not forget Katrina. I'm willing to bet that if it was a rich community, help would have been immediate, but why help the poor, let them drown and end up homeless. It;s quite clear that if we are poor the republicans will not be there to help. They have a proven track record of ignoring the poor. It breaks my heart that a fellow transgendered person would even consider voting for a party that is extremely homophobic and would stop at nothing to suppress our rights. Here we have Obama, who has already stood up for us, and who has presented us with a hopeful future. At least he's addressing issues that concern me. What do the republicans bring to the table? Mudslinging. I am so disgusted with the republicans. All they can think of is big money. They could care less about the common men and women who's backs they walk on to further their goals. Do we want more of this abuse? I for one do not. Just because this is a woman, doesn't mean she's the right person for the job. The way I see it, if you vote republican, you are sanctifing war with Iraq and are in favor of ending a women's right to choose, not to mention big oil ripping us off on a huge scale. Hey, if they can afford to give themselves 437,000,000.00 bonuses, they can afford to lower the gas prices at the pump. Am I the only one that feels the republicans are working hand in hand with big oil and taking us to the cleaners? After all, the war criminal Bush is an oil man himself. I thought it interesting the two states have arrest warrents out for Bush. I'm not here to hurt anyones feelings, and just want to speak my mind on the matter as this is very important to me. If you havn't already, please register to vote, the deadline is Oct. 6th, and consider voting for Obama. Some of you could be very helpful by joining the Obama campaign for change and help with phone banking and neighborhood canvassing. We can use help with data input and even giving people rides to the polls. We also need help with registering voters. Do your part in stopping four more years of this insanity. Yes, I respect everyones opinion and am not trying to push my views on anybody, but....the lines are being drawn and you are either on our side or you, in my opinion, you are the enemy. Gas was 1.46 a gallon when Bush came into office. You are not my friend if you support a party that takes advantage of the poor, is homophobic. and states we are doing Gods will in Iraq? And what about torture? I couldn't help but see simularities between our country and the Germany of 1932-1945. Again, I'm sorry if I'm coming on too strongly with that last statement, but this election and the republicans have my blood boiling. Puff, puff. Ahhhh. Much better. Please don't take this as a personal attact against anyone, because i respect your views, after all, this is still America, and not nazi Germany, yet. Getting back to a woman in office, heck yeah, I'm more than eager to see a woman president but not this lady. As Gloria Steinman put it, the only thing Palen has in common with Hillary is a chromosone. One last thing, When push comes to shove, we'll buck before we f**k.

Sheila,
Thank you for making my point. Now anyone with a brain, you may want to consider McCain/Palin if you don't want a marxist/socialist form of government in the U.S.

I will also remind you that Nancy Pelosi and company, majority parties in both the house and senate have the lowest approval rating on record, something like 9% now. Also let me remind you that Obama's economic advisors are the Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae executives that were fired for running those organizations into the ground. Let me also open the eyes of your brilliant mind that we still need oil for so much more than just gasoline and until there is an alternative on the market, we need all we can get. And on the homophobe crap, lets start with being TG has little to do with being homosexual. The dems talk a good game but tend to continue dangling the carrot, never giving you what you want.

The crazy thing about all this is so many of you bitch about government and Obama is promising you more government. GEEZ!

Yep, I will definitely be voting for McCain/Palin and I'm proud of it. LOL

Lots of hugs,
Marsha

Just to help you deniers out, here are the names of the two Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac executives. Franklin Raines and James Johnson. So you don't have to hear my biased view I will let you just google it yourself.
More hugs,
Marsha

And back to Palin and trooper gate. That guy was fired for insubordination because of knowingly doing something that he wanted to that was not in the budget. The scandal is just another hack that is pissed he got caught doing what he wasn't suppose to be doing.

I think a woman president would be an asset for the whole world myself. Margeret Thatcher showed how it can be done and was a strong leader but had a different perspective to a mans. I'd like to see the US follow suit but I honestly don't think it's going to happen for a long time yet. Such a pity. I think Hilary could have actually done a very good job of it too.

Nikki

Being way over on the other side of the pond I don't follow the election too closely, but Sarah Palin is not one for the people in my opinion. Robyn has already pointed out two issues, namely Alaska and Iraq that she wants to exploit further. She's prepared to run rough shod over her own country's soil as well as that of another country, and justifies it as 'god's plan'. Politics and religion should be kept far apart, history has taught us that much. She seems to be a bit of a loose cannon that, given the opportunity, could go off with dire consequences.

Nikki

That was nice of Biden to divide up some other country. I'm amazed that someone actually let the Iraqi's in on it so they had a say in how their country is run.

Marsha, I wasn't being hypocritical, I was making a sweeping statement aimed at politics in general. I'm not voting after all.

Nikki

I don't see why a woman wouldn't make a good leader.....after all, in the UK we had maggie thatcher, India had Indira Gandhi & the philipines had Cory Aquino.


Lol xxxxxxxxxx
Anna-Marie