It's real, and it's spectacular.

Posted by: Sarah at 11:50 AM | Comments (7) | Add Comment
Post contains 11 words, total size 1 kb.

1 That is so cool. I am jealous, very jealous.

Posted by: Reasa at October 31, 2008 12:19 PM (2W7Iu)

2 You're gonna look so darned hot! Watch out for all the Regular Joes looking for a hot lady.

Posted by: Guard Wife at October 31, 2008 12:25 PM (eb8pN)

3 Cangrats, welcome to the wonderful world of assualt weapon ownership. Yup, itÂ’s confirmed yet again, woman with firearms equals hot! You betcha.

Posted by: tim at October 31, 2008 12:57 PM (nno0f)

4 COOL!!!!!!!!!!

Posted by: Debey at October 31, 2008 02:24 PM (T/y6/)

5 That's the scariest Halloween costume I've ever seen! Looks like you took this advice. Good luck subverting the true meaning of Halloween.

Posted by: Amritas at October 31, 2008 04:14 PM (+/Ct7)

6 Awe. SOME. Reminds me of a shirt I saw at my first gun show - "I own a [picture of assault rifle], and I vote." Heehee... congrats! :-)

Posted by: kannie at October 31, 2008 10:39 PM (iT8dn)

7 I LOVE IT!!!

Posted by: Green at November 02, 2008 02:29 PM (6Co0L)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

I liked this round-up of Obama gaffes. Shoot, even I know the difference between Sanford and Son and The Jeffersons. And I never watched either show growing up.

But this one from back in May I hadn't heard yet, and it's a doozy:

In Cape Girardeau, Missouri, Obama showed off his knowledge of the war in Afghanistan by honing in on a lack of translators: “We only have a certain number of them and if they are all in Iraq, then it’s harder for us to use them in Afghanistan.” The real reason it’s “harder for us to use them” in Afghanistan: Iraqis speak Arabic or Kurdish. The Afghanis speak Pashto, Farsi, or other non-Arabic languages.

You know, twice in the past week or so, I have made jokes about how $600 couldn't even buy earrings, and nobody got it. Once I explained, they were shocked that Michelle Obama had said such a thing. But they hadn't heard about it before I mentioned it.

Posted by: Sarah at 09:34 AM | Comments (3) | Add Comment
Post contains 166 words, total size 1 kb.

In personal news, I have done all the normal fertility testing that they do. There's nothing wrong with me. There's nothing wrong with my husband. But we still don't have a baby. Fantastic.

Posted by: Sarah at 09:07 AM | Comments (7) | Add Comment
Post contains 35 words, total size 1 kb.

1 I'm so sorry... it really stinks when the good news and the bad news are the same thing. *thoughts & prayers*

Posted by: kannie at October 30, 2008 10:47 AM (iT8dn)

2 Part of me is relieved, unless their assessment is wrong. Part of me is alternately puzzled and frustrated. But all of me is thinking of you.

Posted by: Amritas at October 30, 2008 10:52 AM (+nV09)

3 Do you watch mystery diagnosis? I saw something that made me think of you on it the other night. Are all blood tests normal. Anything??? Something is happening. After all that, I just turned 72 last weekend so I can't remember what the diagnosis was!! Something about mysterious blood clots shutting off supply to the uterus. I am in the market for a birthday Yorkie now, to replace our almost 16 Yorkie girl we lost a year ago. I am still sure you will become a mother!

Posted by: Ruth H at October 30, 2008 01:19 PM (FAgoX)

4 Will they refer you to a specialist specialist? I'm not sure what kind of fertility doctors you're seeing but sometimes the frontline testing isn't enough to diagnose what's what. Their technical name for it? "Unexplained infertility" Lovely, right? It's like, I was under the impression that the DOCTOR would be able to explain this all...sheesh. I'm sorry. Like someone else says it sucks when the good news and the bad news are the same thing. I have my annual appt. with my OB/GYN soon. I'll ask him some questions...it will take my mind off him conducting his business on my business.

Posted by: Guard Wife at October 30, 2008 02:55 PM (eb8pN)

5 Sorry to hear the bummer news. Hang in there - I'll keep you both in my prayers. You'll have a baby soon!

Posted by: BigD78 at October 30, 2008 04:56 PM (PsV2e)

6 I hate to say that I feel sorry that your tests came back normal, but this is one of those cases where normal sucks. Wrong means something they can try to fix. I wish I had something to suggest but we kind of exhausted all the testing they could think of, too, and got nothing. Just focus on the fact that if they haven't found anything wrong, then nothing's wrong--meaning that things might go right just as easily. but in the meantime, exhaust the doctors. Make them run even the weird tests, and the things that they've ruled out but because you don't seem to fit the parameters....

Posted by: Ann M. at October 31, 2008 06:59 AM (HFUBt)

7 Get a dog and devote all your attention to it. (If you have one already, rinse, and repeat.) Once it's certain that it's human and its position in the family is unshakable, you'll have a baby. It never fails. Seriously though, I'll be praying for you.

Posted by: steven at November 02, 2008 01:46 AM (B+qrE)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

Lileks writes on Dean Barnett's death. As only Lileks can write.

Posted by: Sarah at 05:11 AM | Comments (1) | Add Comment
Post contains 13 words, total size 1 kb.

Is America Really Going To Do This?

There are, alas, many in the west for whom all this is music to their ears. Whether through wickedness, ideology, stupidity or derangement, they firmly believe that the ultimate source of conflict in the world derives at root from America and Israel, whose societies, culture and values they want to see emasculated or destroyed altogether. They are drooling at the prospect that an Obama presidency will bring that about. The rest of us canÂ’t sleep at night.

(Via Oda Mae)

Posted by: Sarah at 04:58 AM | Comments (2) | Add Comment
Post contains 101 words, total size 1 kb.

Yesterday I went to the McCain rally. We stood outside for two hours in the cold to get in, and the line was huge. It was pretty fun, clapping and booing and laughing with the crowd. Ours is a swing state, and I hope things go well for us next week. At this point, I don't know what to think.

Sadly, this isn't Ohio: I only get to vote once.

Posted by: Sarah at 04:46 AM | Comments (3) | Add Comment
Post contains 74 words, total size 1 kb.

1 That is awesome you got to go. I was hoping they would bring a rally to Illinois, but I think it would have been a lost cause on their part. I'm getting nervous but today the campaigns are within the margin of error. When Reagan won in a landslide against Jimmy Carter, at this point in the campaign Carter was up by 8 points. So I still have hope

Posted by: BigD78 at October 29, 2008 09:05 AM (W3XUk)

2 I wish I could go to sleep and wake up on Tuesday, just in time to vote (not that it'll make much of a difference in my state). Glad to hear that you had fun at the rally!

Posted by: Susan at October 29, 2008 09:30 AM (IfQM3)

3 Sounds like fun. I went to the rally when he came out to Sea-town during the primaries, right before Romney officially dropped out. I wanted to see exactly who we were "settling for". I do have to admit; I ended up liking him much better after seeing him in person. Hope your swing state swings to the right!

Posted by: Leofwende at October 29, 2008 04:42 PM (cZoqf)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

Blue Collar Muse has posted an excerpt from Atlas Shrugged. I have been telling myself to pull the beautiful copy that Amritas bought me from the shelf and read it again. The excerpt -- Socialism's Lying Promise -- may just prompt me to do that. But I fear it will only succeed in depressing me even further.

I also clicked through to Blue Collar Muse's old post entitled Conservatives Shrugged. I understand this struggle, this desire to shrug, and identify with the dilemma of just wanting to win so we don't have to suffer through Dems vs wanting an actual candidate who's worth a damn.

(As usual, thanks to Amritas for the links. He's been on fire lately.)

Posted by: Sarah at 04:22 AM | Comments (2) | Add Comment
Post contains 120 words, total size 1 kb.

This deployment has been easy. Regular contact, a cushy job, and a short-ish tour. So easy, in fact, that when the phone rang unexpectedly at 4 AM last month, there was no thought in my mind that something had happened to my husband. I have managed to avoid much anticipatory grief this time around.

But we lost a team leader in Afghanistan.

I attended the memorial service today. I had never met this soldier and neither had my husband, but I think we would've liked him. Actually, I know we would've liked him based on one thing that was mentioned during the service: his nickname for his wife was Sparta 6.

When you sit there in a memorial service, and you look at all the photos of the soldier and hear the eulogies, you can't help but imagine what people would say about your own husband. How would they describe him? What photos capture who he is? Would a fellow soldier swallow back tears while speaking about my husband?

I had managed to avoid thinking about my husband's mortality too much this time around. But today was a reminder that he will be leaving again next year, likely as a team leader. He will be back in the thick of things.

You know, it does horrible things to your heart to sit back on the homefront and watch other people's husbands die...

UPDATE:

The Bandaids On Our Hearts

Posted by: Sarah at 06:01 AM | Comments (5) | Add Comment
Post contains 240 words, total size 1 kb.

1 yes. yes, it does.

Posted by: Sis B at October 28, 2008 07:07 AM (U76K6)

2 Oh, yes. I'm sorry.

Posted by: Lucy at October 28, 2008 08:32 AM (S6Cdg)

3 RIP Capt. Lindenau

Posted by: tim at October 28, 2008 11:08 AM (nno0f)

4 *sigh* I'm so sorry. It always sucks to hear...

Posted by: T at October 28, 2008 05:45 PM (/UP5m)

5 So sorry to hear. I can only imagine the impact on your heart.

Posted by: Barb at October 31, 2008 04:18 AM (T4MbB)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

Now this might be an explanation for something that's puzzled me for a long time.

Second, if ever you've been amazed when you heard people on the left say that mainstream liberal media outlets such as the New York Times are not liberal but "conservative," Obama's remarks about the Warren Court reveal where such people are really coming from. The reason they regard the mainstream media as "conservative" is that the mainstream media do not advocate the overthrowing of the U.S. Constitution, of free enterprise, and of property rights--and those are the things that true leftists/progressives, such as Obama, seek.

(via Amritas)

Posted by: Sarah at 02:58 AM | Comments (5) | Add Comment
Post contains 104 words, total size 1 kb.

These are the times that try men's souls.

I have been off the internet for a couple of days, but so much has come out. This Syria thing is huge, and a plot to assassinate Obama. And this 2001 tape of Obama that's out? Whittle says it all:

We have, in our storied history, elected Democrats and Republicans, liberals and conservatives and moderates. We have fought, and will continue to fight, pitched battles about how best to govern this nation. But we have never, ever in our 232-year history, elected a president who so completely and openly opposed the idea of limited government, the absolute cornerstone of makes the United States of America unique and exceptional.

If this does not frighten you — regardless of your political affiliation — then you deserve what this man will deliver with both houses of Congress, a filibuster-proof Senate, and, to quote Senator Obama again, “a righteous wind at our backs.”

And Dean Barnett died, which makes me sad. I liked him.

My soul is tried these days.

Posted by: Sarah at 02:08 PM | Comments (3) | Add Comment
Post contains 176 words, total size 1 kb.

So there's a stock boy at my new job -- I'm gonna peg him at about 18 years old -- who I suspect has a crush on me. Last week he followed me all around the store, gave me a "how you doin'?", and wanted to know how old I am. The look on his face was priceless when I told him. And I figured that would be the end of it, but today he asked me if my band is just a ring or if I'm married.

I've probably been married since he was in middle school.

One of the girls at work says that makes me a cougar.

You know, when I was 16, I worked at a concert arena. I was one of the only females, and I was a good 30 years younger than most people working there. I can't tell you how many times gross 23-year-old roadies would come on to me. I used to get so annoyed at the unwanted attention at work.

And now, shoot, I want to hug this kid.

It has been years since someone has shown an interest in me. It is sincerely the most flattering thing that's happened in a long time. I am just tickled pink that this kid even remotely thought it would be appropriate for me to talk to him. I have been giggling all day.

Now there's an ego boost. Heh.

Posted by: Sarah at 10:34 AM | Comments (5) | Add Comment
Post contains 254 words, total size 1 kb.

Man, you guys thought I was crazy when I linked voting and taxes:
White People Shouldn't Be Allowed To Vote
(via Amritas)

Posted by: Sarah at 10:23 AM | Comments (2) | Add Comment
Post contains 24 words, total size 1 kb.

Tim's wife, whom we all know as CPT Patti, was admitted to the hospital. They still aren't entirely sure what's wrong with her. I thought maybe some of you old-schoolers could leave some encouraging comments here for her so she can read them when she gets computer access. Hang in there, Patti. We know you're tough!

Posted by: Sarah at 03:40 AM | Comments (4) | Add Comment
Post contains 62 words, total size 1 kb.

I'm re-reading Larry Elder's The Ten Things You Can't Say In America, and I came across a timely point:

An economics major in college, Reagan further argued that lowering taxes would increase money coming into federal coffers because it kick starts people into working harder, smarter, and with less need to conceal income.

But guess who else felt that way? JFK. That's right, JFK. In the December 24, 1962, issue of US News and World Report, "Kennedy's Latest Word on Tax Cuts, Plans for Business," in urging a tax cut, Kennedy said that "it is a paradoxical truth that tax rates are too high today and tax revenues are too low -- and the soundest way to raise revenues in the long run is to cut rates now.

"The experience of a number of European countries has borne this out. This country's own experience with tax reductions in 1954 has borne this out, and the reason is that only full employment can balance the budget -- and tax reduction can pave the way to full employment. The purpose of cutting taxes now is not to incur a budgetary deficit, but to achieve the more prosperous expanding economy which will bring a budgetary surplus."

Somehow I don't think Obama is the new Kennedy.

Posted by: Sarah at 06:45 AM | Comments (3) | Add Comment
Post contains 218 words, total size 1 kb.

I need to read Varifrank more often than I do.
Shoot, I wish I were Varifrank. That man can write.

His post about the blood on the carpet of your soul.
His post on the Truman-Dewey race.
And finally, Monster.

You know, just bookmark him.

Posted by: Sarah at 01:14 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 59 words, total size 1 kb.

Obama and the Tax Tipping Point:

What happens when the voter in the exact middle of the earnings spectrum receives more in benefits from Washington than he pays in taxes? Economists Allan Meltzer and Scott Richard posed this question 27 years ago. We may soon enough know the answer.

Barack Obama is offering voters strong incentives to support higher taxes and bigger government. This could be the magic income-redistribution formula Democrats have long sought.

Sen. Obama is promising $500 and $1,000 gift-wrapped packets of money in the form of refundable tax credits. These will shift the tax demographics to the tipping point where half of all voters will receive a cash windfall from Washington and an overwhelming majority will gain from tax hikes and more government spending.

In 2006, the latest year for which we have Census data, 220 million Americans were eligible to vote and 89 million -- 40% -- paid no income taxes. According to the Tax Policy Center (a joint venture of the Brookings Institution and the Urban Institute), this will jump to 49% when Mr. Obama's cash credits remove 18 million more voters from the tax rolls. What's more, there are an additional 24 million taxpayers (11% of the electorate) who will pay a minimal amount of income taxes -- less than 5% of their income and less than $1,000 annually.

In all, three out of every five voters will pay little or nothing in income taxes under Mr. Obama's plans and gain when taxes rise on the 40% that already pays 95% of income tax revenues.

And we have Barney Frank saying outrageous things like this:

I believe later on there should be tax increases. Speaking personally, I think there are a lot of very rich people out there whom we can tax at a point down the road and recover some of the money.

I put up a quote from Neal Boortz's piece To the Undecided Voter about how democracy fails when the scales tip and people can vote themselves more money. Andy McCarthy received a similar quote from this blog's namesake, Robert Heinlein.

A perfect democracy, a "warm body" democracy in which every adult may vote and all votes count equally, has no internal feedback for self-correction.... [O]nce a state extends the franchise to every warm body, be he producer or parasite, that day marks the beginning of the end of the state. For when the plebs discover that they can vote themselves bread and circuses without limit and that the productive members of the body politic cannot stop them, they will do so, until the state bleeds to death, or in its weakened condition the state succumbs to an invader — the barbarians enter Rome.

I think our country is in serious trouble.

But apparently Sarah Palin's clothes matter more than massive voter fraud and Democrat donation fraud.

"I love mankind; it's people I can't stand."

Posted by: Sarah at 04:55 AM | Comments (4) | Add Comment
Post contains 490 words, total size 3 kb.

Second Place To A Cheeseburger
Yes, honey, I dimed you out again on SpouseBUZZ.

UPDATE:

Interesting postscript to the cheeseburger story. Tonight when the webcam pops up, there's my husband, ceremoniously eating a cheeseburger on camera. With this devilish, I'll-show-you look on his face. We both cracked up.

I love how he can turn something irritating into something endearing.

Posted by: Sarah at 03:19 AM | Comments (3) | Add Comment
Post contains 61 words, total size 1 kb.

Now here's a Democrat I'd like to have a beer with. (OK, you too, pinko commie friend.)
Orson Scott Card: Would the Last Honest Reporter Please Turn On the Lights?

Via Powerline. Also via them is this post: "I Was Born In Colombia, But I Was Made in the USA."

Posted by: Sarah at 04:57 PM | Comments (11) | Add Comment
Post contains 52 words, total size 1 kb.

1 I don't think anyone expects unbiased truth from the media, except the media themselves, who claim to be providing it. It is the profound dishonesty that offends so many. You are unlikely to get a beer with Mr. Card, sorry to say, as I'm 99% sure he is LDS. =)

Posted by: Sig at October 22, 2008 03:38 AM (n369L)

2 Oh yeah, crap Sig...I did know that. OK, a milkshake

Posted by: Sarah at October 22, 2008 03:56 AM (TWet1)

3 trr is the poster child for the Democrat Party, expect nothing and care even less about the consequences. Hell, considering their track record of failed policies, (the top ten poorest cities are run by DÂ’s), it all makes perfect sense. Also, thanks for enlightening me on the reasoning behind ObamaÂ’s support. Just take away reason and accountability from the average personÂ…and youÂ’ll find some of that Hope/Change. You couldnÂ’t be a more perfect example of why IÂ’m a Republican. Thanks. And who you trying to kid, you donÂ’t drink beer, you reek of w(h)ine.

Posted by: tim at October 22, 2008 08:41 AM (nno0f)

4 Hi Tim, Tasty personal attack! I highly doubt that I'm the Democratic posterchild. Truthfully I don't feel that my beliefs are all that different from the average Republican's. I'm all for gun rights and pro life, and whatever talking points you want to throw out there. Having said that, I'd like to address your comment about "expecting nothing" and "not caring about the consequences." I'll stand by not expecting much from a Presidential candidate for a number of reasons. First, the Presidents is in Washington and I live in middle America. If I want change in middle America I should be doing something about it here, not expecting Washington to do it for me. While I should be able to trust that positivity will come (and let's be honest, it did from Clinton, it did from Bush, it will from McCain or Obama) I don't expect the person in the chair to set the tone for the direction my life and affairs will take. So, in essence, I think I take alot of responsibility for my own consequences and that which I have influence over. This is what I don't get - the bile on both sides and the willingness to attach so vehemently. Right now, I think its bad for either party to control all 3 branches. I think this country requires both viewpoints, as neither is all the way correct. The Republican agenda generally has alot of good things going for it and a few black marks (in my opinion) that I can't square with. Having said that, often I vote D based on what I expect the candidate to actually accomplish as opposed to the ideology involved. Different strokes for different folks. I can foresee a day where the issue that I support the D's for to be "handled" to my satisfaction and I might very well vote R with a clear conscience. Oh, and you're right, I'm not a beer drinker, or even a w(h)ine drinker as you suggested. I can't handle much more than a diet caffeine-free Dr. Pepper being such a weak-willed lefty and all. (Insert jokey emoticon here) - trr

Posted by: Sarah's Pinko Commie Friend at October 22, 2008 11:48 AM (n5dnp)

5 “I'm all for gun rights and pro life, and whatever talking points you want to throw out there.” So to you, the 2nd Amendment and the rights of an unborn child are merely “talking points”? I’d say they are just a tad more than that and evidently above your pay grade. “I'll stand by not expecting much from a Presidential candidate for a number of reasons. First, the Presidents is in Washington and I live in middle America. If I want change in middle America I should be doing something about it here, not expecting Washington to do it for me.” So you can’t comprehend that what happens in Washington actually affects and has the potential to change your life ALL the way over in “Middle America”? So when Pres. Obama, (no, I’m not conceding), in Washington, raising taxes, and he will, you won’t be affected ‘cause your WAY over there? While I commend you on you attitude of “not expecting Washington to do it for me” I don’t see the correlation to your (incorrect) theory that what happens in Washington stays in Washington. Can I assume you’ve heard of the Supreme Court? By they way, the next president will probably appoint 4/5 new justices. Though don’t worry, what they decide won’t affect anything where you live. “While I should be able to trust that positivity will come (and let's be honest, it did from Clinton, it did from Bush, it will from McCain or Obama)” It would depend on what you mean by positivity and since that’s seems to be such a broad term, I’ll let that one go. “I don't expect the person in the chair to set the tone for the direction my life and affairs will take.” I don’t know anybody who believes otherwise. So again, you’re mixing apples and oranges. “So, in essence, I think I take alot of responsibility for my own consequences and that which I have influence over.” Tell me again why you’re a Democrat… “This is what I don't get - the bile on both sides and the willingness to attach so vehemently.” I don’t have a problem with our politicians being passionate about the views and principles they hold. Hell, I want them to be. Their jobs involve serious issues that impact us all, well not you apparently, and have the potential to impact us in various ways. But lying, conniving and being untruthful are unacceptable, yes. And I’m not a fan of nuanced, double speak that is favored by lawyers like the Obama’s , Clinton’s and the Edward’s. “The Republican agenda generally has alot of good things going for it and a few black marks (in my opinion) that I can't square with.” And so you’re a Democrat because… “Having said that, often I vote D based on what I expect the candidate to actually accomplish as opposed to the ideology involved.” I don’t see how a candidate will meet you expectations without relying on their ideology, that being their beliefs and ideas? What else is left, Hope/Change? Though I guess since you don’t expect “much from a Presidential candidate” I can see why you’re a Democrat and why no doubt you’ll be voting for Obama. ‘The Democrat Party –expect nothing, ‘cause that’s what we deliver.’ “I can foresee a day where the issue that I support the D's for to be "handled" to my satisfaction and I might very well vote R with a clear conscience.” WTF are you trying to say? You need to figure out what you believe in and pick a party that honors those beliefs. To say you’re confused about which party represents your views is a major understatement. It doesn’t make you a bad person, I’m just sayin’…

Posted by: tim at October 23, 2008 07:15 AM (nno0f)

6 Ok, here we go. "So to you, the 2nd Amendment and the rights of an unborn child are merely “talking points”? I’d say they are just a tad more than that and evidently above your pay grade." Comments about my pay grade notwithstanding my point was that I don't blindly commit to either party's ideology. some things I think the dems have "right" some things the Republicans have better. "So you can’t comprehend that what happens in Washington actually affects and has the potential to change your life ALL the way over in “Middle America”?" I can comprehend it just fine, its just that the only influence I have is a voice every few years. Therefore I don't sweat it, I deal with what comes and take responsibility for what I can control. "Tell me again why you’re a Democrat…" Never claimed to be one. Often I vote Dem. Sometimes I might not. I vote the candidate and what I expect them to be able to control as neither party has it all right and I don't feel obligated to throw in my lot with either. "I don’t see how a candidate will meet you expectations without relying on their ideology, that being their beliefs and ideas? What else is left, Hope/Change?" My expectations are don't embarass me, don't get me killed, and leave it better than you found it. Their ideology certainly matters, but doesnt set the tone since there are other branches of government that influence what legislation is passed. The president is one cog in the wheel - important to be sure, but not he end-all and be all. I don't want either party in control of all 3 branches, therefore sometimes I like the pres to be a Dem and sometimes not. "WTF are you trying to say?" What I mean is that I support the Dem agenda when it comes to ending abstinence-only sex-ed, gay rights, a diminshing of pandering to the religious right, etc. That's how I feel and I respect that others feel differently. There are some things that I expect to be addressed as time goes on. The Dems seem to be more about enforcing a perceived equality. On certain issues, I think we still need that approach. On others (affirmative action for instance) I think we need to rely on the fact that opportunity does exist rather than trying to force it. "You need to figure out what you believe in and pick a party that honors those beliefs. To say you’re confused about which party represents your views is a major understatement. It doesn’t make you a bad person, I’m just sayin’…" I know exactly what I believe in. And I'm not confised about which party represents my views because neither does a very good job of representing me. I will say this - the politics of the last few years have promoted the idea that each person should be able to be summed up by adherance to one party's ideology or the other. I just disagree with this. Some Democratic policies make me very uncomfortable. redistribution of wealth for instance - I run a business and I want to keep my money! How about socialized health care? I really don't think that's going to solve anything. But as I said before there are a few things that the Republican ticket promotes that I don't buy into. Ergo, I may be represented by either party or neither, but don't try to sell me that I have to cast my lot with one other. I think its rather dismissive to judge someone as confused because they don't feel that their beliefs align perfectly with a given party. At any rate, I appreciate your response. I realize that I probably don't hold that same values as many of Sarah's loyal readers. Having said that, I can admit that the views expressed on this blog have helped to shape my own beliefs, and I hope that the "other side of the aisle" can see the why there are differing opinions. - trr

Posted by: Sarah's pinko commie firend at October 23, 2008 01:06 PM (xAF2d)

7 *eating popcorn* I come here today to watch the intellectual volley between Tim, and the Pinko

Posted by: awtm at October 24, 2008 06:00 AM (skcC5)

8 Well, I don’t want to disappoint awtm…the popcorn smells great… “I don't blindly commit to either party's ideology.” Didn’t expect you too, I don’t. I suspect most people don’t. “…, its just that the only influence I have is a voice every few years. Therefore I don't sweat it, I deal with what comes and take responsibility for what I can control.” No, you only have one vote. You can influence people with your words and actions and do I dare say, you can join a party and/or an organization(s) (NFIB, US Chamber of Commerce, etc.) that best represents your views and values. “Often I vote Dem.” That would make a Dem. “What I mean is that I support the Dem agenda when it comes to ending abstinence-only sex-ed, gay rights, a diminshing of pandering to the religious right, etc.” Sex-Ed in the late 70’s was NOT abstinence-only sex-ed so I doubt it is now. Gays don’t have rights? Really, didn’t realize that. Is that so important to you, are you gay? And I’m not asking derogatorily, I don’t care what you or anybody does in their bedroom. What wrong with the religious right? I’m an atheist and I don’t have a problem with the R’s in regard to this. I hardly think they pander. “The Dems seem to be more about enforcing a perceived equality.” Now we’re getting to the meat of it all. The Dem’s want to take from the ‘Have’s’, people that have earned what they have, and give it to the ‘Have Nots’, people who are were they are because of no fault but their own. This is the fundamental difference between the Party’s. “I know exactly what I believe in. And I'm not confised about which party represents my views because neither does a very good job of representing me. I will say this - the politics of the last few years have promoted the idea that each person should be able to be summed up by adherance to one party's ideology or the other. I just disagree with this.” Most people are able to prioritize things that matter the most to them and figure out which party best represents them the best. Me, I’m for national security, low taxes, less government, this are the things that make me an R. I’ve always viewed people such as yourself as a lot like bisexuals- make up your freakin’ mind already. If you don’t belong to party how do you expect to have a voice? Last time I checked, Independents didn’t have a convention, nor a candidate running for POTUS. You’re in the creek without a paddle or a chance. “Some Democratic policies make me very uncomfortable. redistribution of wealth for instance - I run a business and I want to keep my money! How about socialized health care? I really don't think that's going to solve anything.” Agreed, I’m a small business owner myself. So you’ll be voting for McCain then right? I would think this would take precedent over gay rights, sex ed. and such. “Ergo, I may be represented by either party or neither, but don't try to sell me that I have to cast my lot with one other. I think its rather dismissive to judge someone as confused because they don't feel that their beliefs align perfectly with a given party.” Again, most people aren’t in lock step with their respective party. But most people pick a party based on what is important to them, what BEST represents their values and beliefs. I apologize for my dismissiveness and it seems we have more in common than not. Anyways good chatting with ya’. Sorry if my answers were too brief, time is short today and there was much, probably too much, to cover in this exchange.

Posted by: tim at October 24, 2008 11:24 AM (nno0f)

9 “As far as only having one vote, well I don't even really get that with the electoral college and all.” Ah come on man, certainly you understand how it works, how individuals votes actually count toward the Elec. Coll., right? “As far as national security, low taxes and small governmentare concerned I'm in agreement. I don't buy into the fact that the president is responsible for natsec” You really don’t understand what a president can and cannot do, do you? How’s this – “I will cut investments in unproven missile defense systems. I will not weaponize space. I will slow our development of future combat systems. [snip] I will set a goal of a world without nuclear weapons. To seek that goal, I will not develop new nuclear weapons. I will seek a global ban on the production of fissile material. And I will negotiate with Russia to take our ICBM’s off hair-trigger alert.” see here - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7o84PE871BE That’s from the man you are going to vote for. Sleep tight. “Nevertheless I think we made the decision and we have to take the responsibility to see it through no matter how long it takes.” Again, your man Obama wants TO GET OUT!!! Gezz, dude why the eff are you voting for a guy who is totally at odds with what you seem to value the most? Please watch the video, its’ in his own words! And I AM trying to influence you and anyone who is reading this. Get the facts, educate yourself, don’t take my word for it. Vote for the person who best represents what you determine is most important to you. More importantly don’t cling to flowery words and just blindly go along with the crowd. I’m going now and bang my head against the wall, maybe then I’ll understand the Hope/Change thing you people are grasping at. ARRRGGGGHHHHH!!!!!!

Posted by: tim at October 25, 2008 09:28 AM (nno0f)

10 trr, Chew on this- Rep. Barney Frank (D-MA) of Fannie-gate fame, announced yesterday that he wants a 25% cut in military spending. AND (same article)- House Democrats Contemplate Abolishing 401(k) Tax Breaks Powerful House Democrats are eyeing proposals to overhaul the nationÂ’s $3 trillion 401(k) system, including the elimination of most of the $80 billion in annual tax breaks that 401(k) investors receive. Read it all- http://gatewaypundit.blogspot.com/2008/10/it-has-begun-dem-leaders-call-for-25.html#comments Yup, don't know why I'm a R, nope can't figure it out... Hope/Change

Posted by: tim at October 25, 2008 09:43 AM (nno0f)

11 "Ah come on man, certainly you understand how it works, how individuals votes actually count toward the Elec. Coll., right?" Yup, I get it, its more the issue that some folks believe in one-man-one-vote and that's not really how it works. I live in Illinois - my vote is pretty much unimportant as my state's E-votes are going to the Dems. "You really don’t understand what a president can and cannot do, do you?" I get it plenty - what I'm saying is that the president isn't doing the work. Budgets and all that don't worry me - like most of us the people who are tasked with taking care of us will make do with what they have. Also, the president may have an agenda, but there are 2 other branches of government to temper that agenda. I sleep fine - our military is the most dominant on the planet. Nuclear threats don't worry me - its individuals that we have to worry about these days. This is more of a personal thing now - law enforcement and men-on-the-ground less than missle systems and what not. Are you really still worried about negotiating with Russia? I get that he wants the pull-out and I'm not necessarily in favor of that. But don't make the mistake of presuming that you understand what I value most. Once again the "you people" commentary is what I object to, as is your assertions that someone should pick a side and stick with it. That's the problem with the politics of the last 8 years (of which both sides are guilty). I refuse to buy into "you're either with us or against us" - look, I log into this site because Sarah is an old-school friend of mine. I don't dismiss all Republicans with judgmental commentary and empty generalizations. I genuinely feel that I understand the Republican agenda much more than I used to, and I agree with some of it. I don't buy into hope/change either. Its kinda why I've bothered to remain in this discussion - I don't think that all Republicans are war-mongering rednecks or any other silly stereotype you want to apply, nor do I think its fair to apply to the Dems (even though once again I don't consider myself a Dem). If it had come down to say Huckabee and Clinton I would've voted Huckabee. If it had been Romney/Clinton I'd have had quite a quandry as I really don't believe in either. Ergo, I vote the sitution and not the party. Right now McCain doesn't fill me with confidence. I think he has no opinion of his own, and he's allowing a campaign to determine his future. Now before you roast me on that, Obama and any other candidate will do the same thing. I just dont feel that McCain is a guy I can trust to do the job - I trust Obama to makes speeches and deal on his feet than McCain. I trust him to make decisions better than McCain and what I have to go on is their campaigns at this point. McCain has run a scattered, pandering campaign. That's my take. I believe that Obama is the lesser of two evils at this point. Not necessarilty a desirable candidate, but I only get 2 choices. I'd love to see Obama come in as president and see the house or senate go back to the Republicans. I would think we'd get a little more moderate decision making on the issues that you and I are concerned about (taxes, economy, security, etc). time to put this discussion to bed yet?

Posted by: sarah's pinko commie friend at October 25, 2008 09:48 AM (C8APQ)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

I love Penn and Teller's show. And this final episode maybe actually was "The Best." It was the perfect end to a really good day.

Posted by: Sarah at 04:29 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 29 words, total size 1 kb.

There's a story going on here in town that I simply do not understand. I thought maybe you could help me see what I'm missing.

A gas station owner has been fined $5000 for price gouging during hurricane season last month, when all the gas jumped. Most gas in town went to around $4.00, but apparently this guy was charging $5.50. And apparently he was the only one who raised his this high.

I don't see why this is illegal.

Gas is the most advertised commodity we buy. Ask anyone to tell you the price of milk or detergent, and I bet few people could do it. But everyone knows what gas costs. It's advertised on every street corner. If someone sold gas that day for $5.50, I would've had so much sticker shock that I would've kept going to the next gas station. Problem solved. If I did buy it there, well, I'm a sucker if it was $1.50 cheaper down the street.

But here's what I don't get. Let's say I own a store. I decide I want to sell a two-liter of Pepsi for $45. Is that illegal? It's stupid, but is it illegal? Is it price gouging? Is it only price gouging if there's a natural disaster?

I don't understand why this gas station owner couldn't set the price of gas at whatever he felt like. Is it because other gas stations would see his price and raise theirs? I know gas stations have price wars. Is there some regulating body that decides a price range for gas on any given day?

I really don't get this. What am I missing?

Posted by: Sarah at 01:10 PM | Comments (12) | Add Comment
Post contains 279 words, total size 1 kb.