jsteele wrote:

Aimee4 wrote:I think the applause from the audience about the death penalty, as well as Gov Perry's attitude, stems not from celebrating executions, but celebrating one of very few Governors who's state still actually practice this form of punishment.

Isn't this a distinction without a difference? What is the real difference between celebrating executions and celebrating the guy who carries out executions? Either way, the audience was applauding the fact that people died. The fact that one of those killed may have been innocent may actually help rather than hurt Perry. Check out this article from Politico:

http://dyn.politico.com/printstory.cfm?uuid=A1B30E84-4008-465D-AE24-2BED58E229E7

Regarding focus groups conducted by Kay Bailey Hutchison’s gubernatorial campaign agains Perry:

Veterans of Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison’s unsuccessful 2010 primary challenge to Perry recalled being stunned at the way attacks bounced off the governor in a strongly conservative state gripped by tea party fever. Multiple former Hutchison advisers recalled asking a focus group about the charge that Perry may have presided over the execution of an innocent man — Cameron Todd Willingham — and got this response from a primary voter: “It takes balls to execute an innocent man.”

Would you cheer a statement upholding the right to burn the American Flag or shout vulgarities at a funeral procession? Some might. And others might think its sick. And still others just shrug.

The side that cheers is cheering "yes, we protected free speech!" not "yeah, burn the freaking flag!"

I'm personally against the death penalty. I just understand the Republican mindset.

Anonymous wrote:

Aimee4 wrote:The right feels attacked on all of its beliefs. One of those beliefs is being for capital punishment for crimes that are heinous. So they are celebrating that a belief, a right, is being upheld. I know this sounds strange, but you have to understand the mindset. The right feels like their set of beliefs is constantly under attack.

Why on Earth do you think we don't understand this? Self-pitying feelings of victimization among the more reactionary members of the majority group are pretty much one of the defining characteristics of right-wing movements. Look at the Serbs during the Balkan wars: it wasn't enough that they were engaged in various genocidal purges, they were weeping about how they were misunderstood the whole time.

And the idea that the right-wing is under assault by the "liberal media" is one of the goofiest and least supported ideas in the last 50 years. There is no "liberal media". There's a pro-corporate media on the one hand, and a hyper-partisan right-wing media on the other. I think your issue is that sadly you make the category error of assuming if it's not the latter, it must be "liberal." Hell, there's exactly one channel that wing-nuts point to as being "liberal": MSNBC. And the jewel in that crown is a two-term ex-GOP congressman from Florida.

Then if there is no liberal media bias, why did Fox News cover the Edwards affair months before any other mainstream media outlet?

I certainly do not think Fox News is fair or balanced. I have no idea why anyone listens to anything Glenn Beck says. That said, to claim most other outlets are not left leaning is a joke.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:red states get the military. what makes you think you wouldn't be blue-state Greece? Germany the most red of the bunch doesn't want to pay for all the liberal takers. You can already move to Canada....just go it's easy. But you don't...cuz canada sux.

http://biggovernment.com/publius/2010/02/02/canadian-premier-comes-to-u-s-for-health-care/

This is actually pretty hilarious. "The Red States get the military." It does explain a lot of things, though. Just to clue you in: "the military" costs money. Shitloads of money. And aside from a mediocre oil industry, the Red States don't have any. You sound pretty damned provincial, actually. You realize that one can't just "move to Canada" right? Or France for that matter. It's very difficult to get a work visa.Anyway, much better to un-suck the country we live in, make it live up to its ideals, and attempt to drag it kicking and screaming into the 21st century.

This is actually a myth. If you list the GDP by state and population, the red states produce as much per capita as the blue states. Also, if you haven't noticed, much of our produce is grown in the red states, along with manufacturing and steel.

I think the applause from the audience about the death penalty, as well as Gov Perry's attitude, stems not from celebrating executions, but celebrating one of very few Governors who's state still actually practice this form of punishment. The right feels attacked on all of its beliefs. One of those beliefs is being for capital punishment for crimes that are heinous. So they are celebrating that a belief, a right, is being upheld. I know this sounds strange, but you have to understand the mindset. The right feels like their set of beliefs is constantly under attack.

Although they controlled the White House for most of the last decade, and controlled Congress over half the time, they are repeatedly attacked by the liberal media. I am a liberal, and I'll call it out - the liberal media pounces on every single misstep of a Republican while conveniently ignoring all but the most heinous missteps of the liberals. Why did no liberal news media report about his affair until it's existence was well established?

The liberal media, and the liberals in general, are smug and superior towards republicans. I think this is why Republicans are so successful in the Midwest. The liberal politicians come off like a bunch of Ivy League brats that think they know better than them, while the conservative politicians are just good ole folks who attend church same as they do. Never mind that Bush went to Yale, or that Obama attends church too. It's all in how the politicians present themselves.

I haven't watched the health insurance one...

It's very hard to choose a 'side' from reading this article. The way I read it, the adminstration 'closely monitored' progress, not demanded Solyndra get the deal. There is a huge difference. However, there may be more to it, and there may have been significant pressure to make the loan. Without seeing exactly what was written by and to whom, it is impossible to tell whether it is corruption or not.

TheManWithAUsername wrote:

Anonymous wrote:red states get the military.

Cuz yur callin dibs?

It takes smart, educated people (and/or ones who don't fear immigrant engineers of color) to make our fancy military gear. How would the red states (let's just drop the pretense and call it the Confederacy) plan on funding their military? As I said, they'd be Pakistan.

Note that the blue wouldn't need nearly as large a military, because we wouldn't be sending it on ruinous romps. We probably would want a hard-core border patrol, though.

I agree with most of what your saying, but the red states include the midwest and part of the west - not just the South. It can be summed up as more rural and more religious.
Average income Blue States = $41k
Average income Red States = $34k
However, this does not take into account the cost of living difference. It is far more expensive to live in California, Washinton, NY, Mass than Kansas or Louisiana.
Blue States have a 5.6% higher college graduation rate than Red States.
Ten percent fewer Evangelicals in the Blue States.
Thirteen percent lower gun ownership in Blue States.
Many of these midwestern states, although evangelical and gun-toting, are not racist or xenophobic.
I think many of the voters in the midwest believe false statements from politicians and the media, like the Health Care Reform bill was going to deny old people medical care (Death Panels).

Anyway, a very large portion of the military is in the Blue States. Although many in the military are far right, it is certainly not the majority of those in the military. Look at the percentage of military members that supported the repeal of DADT.

http://www.roanoke.com/news/breaking/wb/298334
"According to the survey by Quinnipiac University, 55 percent of voters said they support tougher regulations, while 22 percent opposed it."

I have to question the legitimacy of this poll. First, only 25% of those surveyed had even heard of the bill. Second, the way the question was posed did not disclose the full measures of the bill nor the impact. Here is the entire poll http://www.quinnipiac.edu/x1284.xml?ReleaseID=1643&What=&strArea=20;&strTime=0

The poll stated the question in this manner: The new rules are the product of a new law in Virginia that reclassified abortion clinics as hospital facilities. According to the new regulations, all abortion clinics and physician offices providing abortions would have to meet specific building and safety requirements that until now, have only been required of hospitals; such as 250-square-foot operating rooms and specific ventilation systems. Do you approve or disapprove of this change that would require the state's abortion clinics to be regulated like hospitals or don't you know?

The new rules also say hallways have to be 5 feet wide, specify the type of window coverings, how loud the air conditioner can be, and the ceiling height. Currently, abortion clinics are regulated the same as clinics that provide oral surgery, plastic surgery and other invasive procedures, such as colonoscopies. At least 17 out of the 21 clinics providing abortions in Virginia will most likely close because the cost of renovation is too much. And frankly, the measures required by the new law have absolutely nothing to do with protecting women's health, as the supporters claim.

Lastly, I doubt the independence of the survey. "There is strong support for the new abortion law among men and women," said Peter Brown, assistant director of the Quinnipiac University Polling Institute. "Opponents apparently have been unable to convince the electorate that this is an unwarranted back-door way to stop abortions. Even Democrats, by a plurality, support the measure." Although Quinnipiac University Poll has a good reputation, and is one of the largest, this statement from the assistant director makes it clear that he supports the new law.

We did as PP. Got a quote from CarMax (only takes 20-30 minutes), and then tried to negotiate with the dealer on trade in allowance. Before negotiating on trade in allownace, get the *final* number on actual cost of the new car. If you don't, then any more money they give you for trade in will be tacked on to the price of the car. For our last 3 vehicle trade-ins CarMax gave us the best deal.

Anonymous wrote:@10:09:

I'm all for Health Care Reform, but they needed to resolve the budget first.

Thanks for the reasonable post. Just want to point out that one of the central points of ACA (i.e. "health care reform") was to address spiraling health care costs. You can be a cynic and say it won't be effective. There are many mainstream economists and the CBO that disagree with you. But if ACA goes into effect, it'll do more to address the long-term deficit than any legislation passed in the last several decades.

I'm sorry I wasn't more specific. I'm not a cynic and didn't say it wouldn't be effective. What I was talking about is passing the 2011 National Defense Authorization Act. It should have been passed in the fall of 2010 before Congress changed hands. If you don't remember, this spring there were multiple continuing resolutions and a great deal of time wasted preparing for a government shutdown.

Military life can be hard. But it can be incredibly rewarding. It is a lot easier to make friends and meet people, and everyone helps everyone else out. Moving a lot has its pluses. Deployments can be hard, but not insurmountable.
The hardest thing, I think, is keeping your daughter's relationship with her father. It all depends on where the Navy takes your potential hubby. It could be across the US or overseas, and your daughter rarely sees her dad. Dad becomes more like an extended relative that she talks to on the phone and gets cards and gifts from and sees twice a year. If he gets homeported in Va Beach, it wouldn't be that bad, at least DC is only 4 hours away.

Anything chocolate. Reeses peanut butter cups, york peppermint patty, brownies, ice cream... this list could be three pages long. lol

Anonymous wrote:DH's sausage.

lol!

I bought a similiar on for Ds when he was roughly 18 months old.
http://www.step2.com/product.cfm?product_id=1499
My DS loved it, still plays with it at 4. We also would put the slide into a baby pool filled with balls and he'd slide down into a pile of balls. And he'd hide underneath. So yes, a toddler will have a lot of fun with the treeehouse one. Put a sheet over it, and its a cave/fort/whatever. The slide can also be a ramp for launching cars and trucks. And occasionally its a castle. Sometimes a boat with stuffed animals in the water that he has to save. A playhouse like this can be so many things. And perfect size for a 1-3 yr old.

Like a PP, we like the touch and feel ones (touch and feel farm, touch and feel curious george at the zoo) and peek-a-boo flap books (where's baby's belly button).
We also love the Dr Suess board books (not the longer ones) - like Dr Suess's ABCs. And our favorite is probably 'B is for Bear' by Roger Priddy.

DH and I are moving in 18 months and we don't know where to yet. As in "what state in the union" where to.
But for the moment (fingers crossed) both kids are healthy. Yippee!