New Haven Independent

Posted by: cat2000 | September 4, 2008 2:38 PM

The snarky jabs and comical interludes were highly entertaining. Did the speech do anything to lead me to believe that SP is here to advance the ball for americans with vaginas... not in the least bit. I hope when Biden starts beating the crap out of her, she won't hide behind "but I'm a girl" veil.

Posted by: robn | September 4, 2008 5:57 PM

You damn right Rosa!

Posted by: Leslie12 | September 4, 2008 6:30 PM

Wrong. Any woman who listened to CNN last night after the speech should be mad as hell. Sexist crap. It was a hell of a speech, and guess what. I liked what I heard.

Posted by: Just Say No | September 4, 2008 6:53 PM

Rosa was so diplomatic.
I find the idea of McCain-Palin winning this election terrifying.
I hope the National Enquirer comes through with some dirt that will make her unpalatable to the right wing nut jobs who are currently so enamored of her.

Posted by: JackNH | September 4, 2008 10:21 PM

Rosa, I usually disagree with you, but today YOU ARE RIGHT ON!!!! You go, girl!

Posted by: Doug | September 5, 2008 12:45 AM

The Daily Show really sums this up with commentary from Republicans themselves, including Karl Rove, Bill O'Reilly and others. The key stuff comes after the segment on clandestine bathroom sex ... second segment has Rove, O'Reilly and others blatantly contradicting themselves ... great stuff.

http://www.thedailyshow.com/index.jhtml

Posted by: cedarhillresident | September 5, 2008 8:48 AM

Doug
I watched that to and I hope they were as well! FLIP FLOP

Posted by: klesa123 | September 5, 2008 3:05 PM

SP better be able to take it if she wants to play with the "big dogs". Running for cover and taking it easy on her because she's a woman just won't fly. There are too many women out there who have worked too long and hard in the corporate world and in politics who have had to withstand a lot of sexual harassment and been the butt of jokes not to mention hitting the glass ceiling head-on. I really don't think SP knows anything about that part of the world.

She's not going to be playing in the State of Alaska with very little population - she's entered the big time and better be able to take it when it's dished out to her.

McCain thinks he cleverly pulled Ms. Palin out of his hat so that she will deflect the fact of his age, and his alignment with the Bush Administration. He seems to be hiding under a veil of delusion if he thinks the American people are going to buy this one. There are too many qualified, experienced women out there that could have made an excellent Vice Presidential candidate, but he went with a weak pick and made it in haste in my opinion. Is this the only way he thinks he could win this election?

Posted by: Walt | September 5, 2008 5:24 PM

Looks, brains, speaking ability. morals,ability, guts,policy positions Sarah has it over Rosa in every category,

Even over Obama in executive experience, but that is not saying much as he has none.

Posted by: Disgruntled Democrat | September 5, 2008 6:49 PM

The problem with SP is that she is everything that DeLauro is not. Hard working, blue collar and principled.
When Rosa is staying at one of her three houses in Europe, I guess the socialists there are discussing with her what American policy should be. Just like when we are told an inexperienced black candidate is good for America, why can't a woman with more experience than him be accepted. Its only based on ideology and apparently SP's fresh ideas are a threat to the stale crap we've been getting from DeLauro and Pelosi and their 9% approval rating.
I am not a supporter or McCain/Palin, but I'm not getting my knickers in a knot over her nomination either. The poll conducted by DeLauro's husband is the only one that states that the American public didn't approve of SP. As a matter of fact, Rasmussen today stated that SP had a higher approval rating than Obama or McCain, so there must be some women out there that her narrative resonates with.
I listened to Obama's speech today in PA and all he did was relay information that is easily found in the news. He has yet to state how he is going to create this change we have been hearing about. What I read in the Democrat platform from the convention, however, has me concerned. In our platform it states that our party wants to give almost $800 billion to the UN to distribute across the world to improve education and prevent hunger. That is the total amount of tax revenue we bring in annually. Where is the money coming from if not higher taxes? We have a deficit now, so what programs are we going to cut? Getting out of Iraq is still not enough to pay for this program. Further, lets get our problems straightened out before we piss away tax dollars to the corrupt UN. Until American (especially New Haven) schools are improved (not just rebuilt/remodeled) and there are no hungry panhandlers on the Green, do I want to see my tax dollars aiding others. Maybe that's selfish and not "progressive" but with the doubling of our property tax over the next five years, impending bankruptcy of our City and the current federal tax rate, I can't afford to help anyone else. I can barely put food on my table and gas in my tank to support my family. I pity the less fortunate of the world, but we face these realities here at home.
All of the negativity directed at SP will come back to haunt our party as a rallying cry for the conservatives, but if we don't listen to the non-"progressives" about what their issues are, we can all complain about how the election was stolen from us again in November.

Posted by: David Streever | September 5, 2008 8:45 PM

Walt, you love stirring the pot :D

Only you would say the mayor of a small town and governor for 2 years of ALASKA has greater executive experience. This is a person who thinks that "being near Russia" makes her "experienced with international relations"! Oh, you card.

I'm glad that "looks" was the first thing you brought up! We all know that is very important for a woman politican! If she isn't HOT, well, hell, I won't vote for her! Her policy positions are wonderful, too--I'm a big fan of people who flip-flop on important issues (like how irrelevant the position of VP is!)

I'm so glad to have found another person voting for McCain/Palin 08! I didn't think there was a single other person in the whole city!

Posted by: che15 | September 5, 2008 8:52 PM

I'm sorry can anyone tell me what the f rosa delauro has done in this century. just curious thats all

Posted by: Dustin W. Gold | September 6, 2008 2:35 AM

I am not impressed by Palin, McCain, Obama, Biden, or DeLauro. If they won't speak out against illegal immigration then they are no American to me. I'll be pulling the lever for a third party this year. As for Rosa, her opponent has dodged the question as well, so unless he changes he won't be getting my vote. If you don't like what you see then stand up and run for office.

Posted by: robn | September 6, 2008 8:46 AM

WALT,

Looks are irrelevant...

Brains are not yet evidenced...

Morals are in question...

As is ability, given the Alaskan bipartisan investigations into her conduct....

And as far as policy positions are concerned, except for the following, there is NO policy statement in her acceptance speech.

http://www.zimbio.com/Sarah+Palin/articles/418/Sarah+Palin+Speech+Sarah+Palin+transcript

"we're going to lay more pipelines ... build more nuclear plants ... create jobs with clean coal ... and move forward on solar, wind, geothermal and other alternative sources" sarah palin 2008 RNC

Given that, until recently, Republicans have controlled all branches of government and for the last eight years and have failed to diversify our energy and instead have only continued to press for more domestic drilling, this claim is vaccuous.

Dear folks, a vote for McCain is a vote for more of the same...if you can't bring yourself to vote for Obama in Novemeber, do your fellow Americans a favor and stay home on election day.

Posted by: Walt | September 6, 2008 4:12 PM

Right----looks are irrelevant and should not have been cited.

Put in because of the often heard left-handed compliment "Obviously Rosa did not get her position because of her looks."

Did not like Rosa when she was the Mayor's asst in NH nor when she featured her First Communion photo in attempt to get votes from the Catholic community while at the same time working with the radical feminists for the so-called "women's right to choose to kill their babies"

Not like her mother who was a good NH alderwoman for many years.

Rosa has been in Congress for many years but has accomplished very little it seems.

As to Obama/Palin, her executive experience as Alaskan Governor making the top decisions is not really extensive, I would agree but becomes very big stuff when compared to Obama's complete lack of executive experience,

Even Obama's legislative experience is unimpressive as the bigger part of his term has been spent campaigning rather than legislating.

...And Obama is aiming for the top job, not the trainee's position.

Obama will obviously carry NH and most likely CT in Nov.. Hopefully the voters around the country are more intelligent and will see througn the Obama bull.

(An independent voter who has spent much more time as a Dem than a Repub but is definitely for McCain/Palin this year.)

Posted by: robn | September 6, 2008 5:16 PM

WALT,

Please get your head out of your keister. McCain voted with Bush 90% of the time and like the rest of the GOP, owns all of this administrations indescretions including:

1) Failed national security (911)
2) Failed war against terror (Iraq had nothing to do with 911).
3) Failed economy (deregulated financial industries have fleeced our nation with GOP permission)
4) Failure to rule with respect for the Constitution (illegal torture, wiretapping citizens, changing law with presidential signing statements, endangering our security apparatus with public political reprisal)

No matter how much you might like John McCain, voting for the GOP is absolutely insane. Please stay home on election day.

Posted by: Walt | September 7, 2008 7:05 AM

Robn

You omit that it was under the Clinton administration that the opportunity to control Saddam was not acted upon.

You omit that just about every Dem, including Biden who had access to the same info as Bush, voted in favor of the Iraq move, Biden , maybe the best Dem for VP, has (surprisingly) not changed that view to date in anything I have seen,

You omit that Obama has gradually changed his story re immediate withdrawal of troops, this week even admitting that the "Surge" in Iraq, initiated and pushed by McCain, was very successful.

Agree with Obama that the Iraqis should be bearing more of the cost of the war. Do not know McCain position.

You omit that McCain was an outspoken opponent of most of the Bush actions in your item 4 and try to slam him as a proponent--a grossly unfair tactic.

On the economy I have lost far less in the value of my stock-based pension plan this year than I did in the last year of the Clinton term, but I agree it is not good.

Did not blame Clinton for my earlier losses, nor either Bush for drops during their final year.

Agree the loan sharks really screwed everyone, but many folks who really could not afford to buy homes were able to do so, at least for a time.

Don't know McCain position re this deregulation. Do you, or are you pulling another scam as you did with item 4?

Your candidate, Obama, has nothing to offer but the ability to read a speech well and now has even backed down on the immediate withdrawal from Iraq, the move that propelled him into the race in the first place.

I'll vote, despite your plea,for whom I believe will do the most good or the least harm for the country

This year---McCain/Palin without a doubt..

Posted by: dorian | September 7, 2008 8:23 AM

Rosa is a hypocrite, particularly when it comes to women candidates who have better credentials than she. Rosa was first to jump onboard th Barakmobile for the inexperienced, bloviated, imperial Obama. She did not give her colleague , and far better candidate, Hillary a chance here in CT.

Posted by: robn | September 7, 2008 8:53 AM

WALT,

Iraq-911 connection is false
Saddam Hussein had nothing to do with 911, so your perception that Iraq is relevant to 911 is completely incorrect (in your defense, this is a false perception that was carefully cultivated by the Bush administration in the run-up to the war in order to promote it). See if you can find the contradictory messages in these two videos of GWBush.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8ERMYU8hKK8

http://thinkprogress.org/2006/08/21/bush-on-911/

Mccain voted for torture
http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2008/02/16/mccain_drops_the_torture_ball/

McCain backs wiretapping
http://www.iht.com/articles/2008/06/06/america/06mccain.php

Signing statements
With a few noteable exceptions all of Congress (until recently controlled by Republicans for 6 years) is tacitly responsible for allowing Bush to use signing statements to change written law.

political reprisal
With a few notable exceptions, all of Congress (until recently controlled by Republicans for 6 years) is tacitly responsible for not prosecuting the valerie Plame inceident more agressively.

deregulation
McCain has been consistantly in favor of tax breaks for wealthy and for deregulation. Remeber he was indicted for corruption during the collapse of the S&Ls which he helped deregulate.
http://www.politicor.com/uncategorized/john-mccain-deregulation-hawk-criminal/

please stay home on election day
If you can't accept facts, do your fellow citizens a favor and please stay home on election day.

Posted by: robn | September 7, 2008 10:11 AM

WALT,

One more thing. Far be it from me to suppress the will of the electorate, but I will do my damdnest to make sure that its at least armed with facts. There seems to be some rising undercurrent of false advertising from the Republicans suggesting that their candidates are the underdogs and that Obama is an elitist Washington insider who is no different than the rest.

Firstly, Republicans have been in complete power for most of the last 7 years and have foreced their will on all Americans through an unprecedented number of party line votes.

Secondly, McCain voted with Bush 90% of the time and Obama voted with Bush 40% of the time.

http://mediamatters.org/items/200809020021

The message is clear
McCain=More Bush
Obama=Change

The intentions of the candidates are in the votes. If you want more Bush then vote for McCain. If you want something different, then vote for Obama.

Posted by: robn | September 7, 2008 10:18 AM

recent key votes by John McCain
http://projects.washingtonpost.com/congress/members/m000303/key-votes/

recent key votes by Barack Obama
http://projects.washingtonpost.com/congress/members/o000167/key-votes/

Posted by: Walt | September 7, 2008 5:37 PM

No where did I say that Iraq was connected to 9/11

I favor the wiretapping.

If there is a liklihood of catching those plotting against us and saving American lives, I do not care if they tap my calls or yours. They will be bored by mine.

If wiretaps find plots in time to prevent them, that is great.

I don't rely on the Globe or youtube for unbiased stories. As far as I know, McCain is a leader against torture.

Your comment re Obama as a Washington insider is new to me, Don't think Obama has spent much time in Washington and is certainly not an insider. Just dropped in a bit and then left for his campaign.

In my book every Senator should be docked when not doing his or her job. Never happen of course as they all get full pay while campaigning and are not about to change it

Obama appears to be the least qualified candidate for Pres. in my lifetime. Hopefully he will lose.

Posted by: robn | September 7, 2008 5:55 PM

Walt,

I used to think that I was fortunate to live in a country where people like you didn't have the prerogative to strip me of my Constitutional rights and to warp the false to truth, but you, as so many others, have evidently drunk the cool aid for which there is no antidote. See you at the polls.

Posted by: Walt | September 8, 2008 9:43 AM

ROBN

Listening in on international calls has never been termed unconstitutional by the ones who count--- the Supremes. Just because you and the ultra-liberals call it unconstitutional does not make it so.

Maybe the 3000+ 9/11 victims would still be around if only wiretaps had found about the plots and prevented their being implemented..

Maybe the whole Iraq deal would not have happened (which would make all of us happy) if wiretaps had been used to gather info contradicting the faulty intelligence info we then had.

Can't prove it either way, but I prefer that calls between suspected terrorists abroad and persons in the U.S. be monitored and wish more of it had been done in the past and that more be done in the future..

Does it not seem hypocritcal that you wish to be in a country where people like me are stripped of our constitutional right to express our views? (A right that is truly in the Constitution and many times defined by the Supremes)

Even the ACLU would back me on this one

Aren't you ashamed?

Posted by: robn | September 8, 2008 9:54 AM

WALT,

Lying isn't protected by the Constitution. See you at the polls.

Posted by: cedarhillresident | September 8, 2008 10:13 AM

Thank you Robn!!!!!

Posted by: Walt | September 8, 2008 11:13 AM

ROBN

Lying is not prohibited as -part of free speech,therefor your comments above, including both those which are untrue and those that are true,are constitutional..

Where you misled on some items, I cited specifics.

No lies in mine.

Where do you claim I lied, or are you just ranting again?

It is your expressed wish that the speech of those who disagree with you (like me) be prohibited that makes you a hypocrite.

Aren't you ashamed?

DAVID STREEVER

Guess you were right re stirring the pot and maybe right re no other McCain/ Palin votes in the City ( I am an ex-Fair Havenite, not current)

DUSTIN GOLD.

Is election for Rosa next year? Who is her opponent?

Thanks

Posted by: THREEFIFTHS | September 8, 2008 1:25 PM

Walt and Robin
I will say it again,Both parties are crooked and the same,One does the bank job the other drives the getaway car,One is the boxspring the other is the mattress,Vote Teletubs!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Posted by: Steve Ross | September 8, 2008 2:50 PM

Is it DC or Marvel that's publishing the Ultra-Liberals comic? I hear the Maverick vs. Orator issue is particualry well drawn.

Posted by: robn | September 8, 2008 2:57 PM

WALT,

Conflating the true and the false is lying. See you at the polls.

SR,

I think that those names are already copyrighted by the makers of Top Gun.

Posted by: Steve Ross | September 8, 2008 4:44 PM

Robn,

Makes sense. It appears that Walt is flying us right into the danger zone.

Posted by: laststraw | September 8, 2008 5:52 PM

"Maybe the whole Iraq deal would not have happened (which would make all of us happy) if wiretaps had been used to gather info contradicting the faulty intelligence info we then had."

Maybe the whole Iraq deal would not have happened (which would make all of us happy) if William Kristol and Robert Kagan had not formed the Project for the New American Century.
If I'm speaking "Greek" to you, follow Robn's advice and stay home.

Posted by: robn | September 8, 2008 7:50 PM

SR,

arrrgggh! we've descended into the 80s!

Posted by: Walt | September 9, 2008 7:16 AM

Isn't it odd that not one liberal here believes in free speech for folks like me who disagree with them?

(Paul as Editor is an apparent exception. Although he would likely disagree with most of my comments, he allows them to be posted)

Isn't it odd that Robn accuses me of lying, but refuses to cite even one supposed lie so that I might back it up if it is true or apologize if it is untrue?

Isn't it odd that Steve and Cedar Hill back up Robn even though they apparently do not even know what "lies" she(?) references, and they probably even think they are strong free- speech supporters?

Liberals can be confusing.

Such is life!!

Posted by: robn | September 9, 2008 8:48 AM

Walt,

See you at the polls.

http://www.thedailyshow.com/video/index.jhtml?videoId=184113&title=john-mccain-reformed-maverick

Posted by: cedarhillresident | September 9, 2008 9:10 AM

love ya walt. First I back robn up because she/he (Not really sure) has given link after link. Second as I listen to the slander that the McCain team has repeatedly TRYED to present to the public I wonder how they are falling for it??

http://my.barackobama.com/page/content/fightthesmearshome/

Robn has given you a link of how the two have voted on the issues
recent key votes by John McCain
http://projects.washingtonpost.com/congress/members/m000303/key-votes/

recent key votes by Barack Obama
http://projects.washingtonpost.com/congress/members/o000167/key-votes/

Walt they just plain out right scare me! I am afraid for this country, for my children and for the future of this country. I fear for the middle class and their pending extinction, if this trend continues (similar to New Havens goal to eliminate the middle class, well sorry the lower middle/middle class)

They PR this as if they are the good guys. No, I realize McCain and the beauty queen are saying they are change..a different Rep. but how can you deny that he voted with bush on so much?? You can not pretend that is not fact.

As far as the beauty queen...hmmm I can not even waste my breath on her. She is to big on an insult!

Posted by: cedarhillresident | September 9, 2008 10:45 AM

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9lmZOac4HKU

Posted by: Steve Ross | September 9, 2008 1:05 PM

Walt,

I think you might be confusing yourself. I was making a joke. A funny. A little dweeby, yes, but far from circumscribing anyone's free speech. I directed it at you because the Republican party, its punditry, and its disingenuous rallying around an anti-science, book-banning jerk disgusts and scares me. I felt referencing Kenny Loggins would be a bit cuter is all, and clearly, being cute can get you all the way to the white house.

I often support Robn's position because (just sticking with a pronoun here) she is armed to the teeth with evidence, and offers cogent analyses of things she believes in. I don't always agree. In fact, my first post on NHI was a rebuttal of one of her comments. She summarily dismissed my opinion and, like you, I was sort of offended. But I soon found that she makes a hell of a point and is assertive without making easy generalizations. I also investigated her side of the argument and found that, as she'd suggested, I was being rather naive (in that case about the dispensation of tax dollars).

And believe me, Walt, even though I almost always disagree with your point of view, I've come to note these points and respect many of your posts. You're passionate and are sincere in what you think is best for our country and city. You just happen to be wrong most of the time.

(...I couldn't resist.)

Posted by: Walt | September 9, 2008 5:27 PM

Cedar Hill

Thanks for all the info.

Admittedly, computers are new fangled gadgets to me, and if I do have the references. posting a link is not a possibility.

Was truly bugged by Robn's position stated more than once that folks like me should not be able to express their opinion, a ridiculous position that even a far out conservative would not take, I hope, and certainly a liberal would not be expected to promote

I am not a Repub and might expect to get a hosing on taxes if they are on charge..

Nevertheless, reviewing the votes shown in the referrals, in most, but not all cases, the Repub position on such issues as national defense, military issues, Iraq and the rest of the Mideast,appointments to the Supremes, right-to life, marriage of gays, and who should be in the White House, I would usually agree with the Repub position much more than the Dem, and when the candidates differ, almost always go with McCain over Obama who to me is completely unqualified.

Do like Obama/s position that the Iraqi's should be bearing the costs of the war rather than us. This was originally the Repub position but got lost somewhere.

Also believe taxes should not have been reduced when our operating costs have been so high. On the other hand it had been previously proven (By Kennedy and Reagan) that tax reductions really boost the total economy

Think Reid and Pelosi are complete wastes. Dems should be upset with them too, as they have accomplished nothing as leaders of the Dem majority which has controlled Congress for the last two years.

I see a mess if Obama wins as he is completely unqualified.

Palin is admittedly not much more qualified than Obama to run the federal operations if needed but at least I agree with most of her positions, and she is aiming for the VP slot rather than Pres. as Obama is..

Happy to learn that I misinterpreted your and Steve's comments as agreeing with Robn re opponents of liberals not having the right of free speech.

STEVE

To tell the truth, I had no idea what you were talking about as I haven't looked at Marvel Comics since before you were born

Thanks to both.

Posted by: Disgruntled Democrat | September 9, 2008 9:43 PM

The problem with SP is that she is everything that DeLauro is not. Hard working, blue collar and principled.
When Rosa is staying at one of her three houses in Europe, I guess the socialists there are discussing with her what American policy should be. Just like when we are told an inexperienced black candidate is good for America, why can't a woman with more experience than him be accepted. Its only based on ideology and apparently SP's fresh ideas are a threat to the stale crap we've been getting from DeLauro and Pelosi and their 9% approval rating.
I am not a supporter or McCain/Palin, but I'm not getting my knickers in a knot over her nomination either. The poll conducted by DeLauro's husband is the only one that states that the American public didn't approve of SP. As a matter of fact, Rasmussen today stated that SP had a higher approval rating than Obama or McCain, so there must be some women out there that her narrative resonates with.
I listened to Obama's speech today in PA and all he did was relay information that is easily found in the news. He has yet to state how he is going to create this change we have been hearing about. What I read in the Democrat platform from the convention, however, has me concerned. In our platform it states that our party wants to give almost $800 billion to the UN to distribute across the world to improve education and prevent hunger. That is the total amount of tax revenue we bring in annually. Where is the money coming from if not higher taxes? We have a deficit now, so what programs are we going to cut? Getting out of Iraq is still not enough to pay for this program. Further, lets get our problems straightened out before we piss away tax dollars to the corrupt UN. Until American (especially New Haven) schools are improved (not just rebuilt/remodeled) and there are no hungry panhandlers on the Green, do I want to see my tax dollars aiding others. Maybe that's selfish and not "progressive" but with the doubling of our property tax over the next five years, impending bankruptcy of our City and the current federal tax rate, I can't afford to help anyone else. I can barely put food on my table and gas in my tank to support my family. I pity the less fortunate of the world, but we face these realities here at home.
All of the negativity directed at SP will come back to haunt our party as a rallying cry for the conservatives, but if we don't listen to the non-"progressives" about what their issues are, we can all complain about how the election was stolen from us again in November.

Posted by: Westville Mom | September 10, 2008 7:41 AM

For a far more erudite commentary than I can provide in defense of "pro-life feminism" (as embodied by Sarah Palin) by a "pro-choice feminist", please read Camille Paglia's column of today:
http://www.salon.com/opinion/paglia/2008/09/10/palin/index.html
A sample of the colorful prose you will encounter:
"A feminism that cannot admire the bravura under high pressure of the first woman governor of a frontier state isn't worth a warm bucket of spit."
Many of the comments I have read in this forum are sounding quite out of touch and out of date compared with Paglia's refreshing views, which articulate the inner instincts of many Palin supporters---"Western Conservatism" vs. "East Coast Liberal Elitism", if you will. It's a new century and feminism is changing ... New Haven is clearly not on the bandwagon .... yet.

Posted by: cedarhillresident | September 10, 2008 9:25 AM

"East Coast Liberal Elitism"
hmmm so I am viewed as an elitist...single mother of 2 raising her kids on at times on less than 30,000 a year? and I am an elitist because I support obama and disagree with Palins views. Hmmm wondering who the real elitist is???

Posted by: robn | September 10, 2008 9:34 AM

WVM,

Feminism is about equality and freedom of choice, the latter being something Sarah Palin is willing to afford her daugther but not other women; her stated position being that abortion should be illegal even in cases of rape an incest.

Camile Paglia is wrong and so are you if you think Sarah Palin is a feminist.

Posted by: Westville Mom | September 10, 2008 10:11 AM

Dear Cedar Hill,
Nothing personal--really---your chutzpah and "can do" attitude make you more LIKE Sarah Palin than unlike her. Also, having grown up in a huge, rat-infested, decrepit housing project as a child of a "single mother" myself, I can "one up" you there on your claim to anti-elitism, despite the fact that I am comfortable today (thanks to the opportunities of this great country and student loans.) Agreeing with liberal elitists doesn't MAKE you one, obviously. But, if you read the article I linked, you will see that Paglia makes some extremely interesting arguments about mainstream liberal feminism, which has been largely promulgated by elite academics (like her) and largely propped up on a foundation of one issue: abortion. The "sacred cows" of feminism are being seriously challenged for the first time in decades and I, for one, (and apparently the ONLY one in New Haven), welcome the fight.

Posted by: robn | September 10, 2008 11:08 AM

WVM,

Theres no grey zone or questionable stances. Whether for political reasons or religious reasons, forcing women to breed is nothing less than slavery.

Posted by: Ellis Copeland | September 10, 2008 11:58 AM

Che15 asks what Rosa has done this century. Sadly, nothing. Rosa is a perfect example of why electing a woman for no reason other than she's a woman is a dumb idea. Palin is a lying, corrupt hypocrite. The fact the Rosa is the same is no reason to vote for McInsane.

Posted by: cedarhillresident | September 10, 2008 12:40 PM

WVM
I would like to think of it as "the liberal elitist" agree with me not the reverse. WVM at this point we have to agree that we disagree on womens rights. I respect your views because that is one of the greatest rights we have in this country. But me more like Palin, hmmmm no, I am sorry..this is my body! If I am raped..I want the choose! If my 14 year old neighbor screws up and gets pregnant I want her to have a choose. IF my husband beats and rapes me I want the choose! I do not support gun rights, but I tolerate it. I do not support this war and all the money we are sending to that country while they have billions being banked and we have old people freezing in the winter. I want to protect SSI!! I want every single person in my country to have the health care that you have! My heart hurts for this country! My heart hurts for the people that live in my community that are losing their homes. My heart hurts to see a kid not have the funding or help to go to college. My heart hurt for the education system that is failing the youth nation wide.
WVM Do you at the least understand why people are supporting Obama? I am not asking you to. but try to at least understand why. Luv ya and your comments!

Posted by: Walt | September 11, 2008 7:54 AM

Cedar Hill

I would probably, with many qualms, be with you in true cases of rape or incest, on my own theory of invading, attacking sperm.

If you have a right to choose, it should certainly be negated, when you have voluntarily performed the act which caused the pregnancy.

The euphemism "right to choose" is misleading when what you really mean is "right to choose to kill my innocent baby".

You seem like a nice lady, who would probably rightly raise hell if she saw a dog being tortured or killed, but believes the same actions against her or others' own innocent child is freely permissable. .

Luv most of your posts too and don't mean to unduly upset you,, but something here is cockeyed.

( and to your question....I could understand why you might support Hillary, or Biden but Obama, who offers only a golden tongue, and that, only if he has a teleprompter,no, I can't understand your motivation.)

Posted by: sacre blue | September 11, 2008 8:26 AM

Walt, I think this group has the final word on abortions, but personally, after a hard day of forcing straight couples into gay marriages, indoctrinating children into the "gay agenda", perfoming sex change operations on baptist preachers, hunting animals from helicoptors, knocking up small town Alaska girls and inseminating "feminazi" lesbian couples with my turkey baster, oh - and drawing allah cartoons and doing some quicky "traditional values" female circumcisions, I like to kick back and relax with some toasted eucharist cookies (slathered with cheezewiz), watch football (not the gay European kind) and have a nice holy water abortion smoothy. Yummie!

Posted by: Walt | September 11, 2008 9:20 AM

SACRE MERDE'

There are some truly cruddy characters around.

Posted by: cedarhillresident | September 11, 2008 10:57 AM

As we all know this is always going to be an issue that we will never agree on. I stand by my pro choose! I do not see it as murder as long as it is done in the first 22 weeks. Sorry. And I even support partial birth in extreme cases. So you are more than welcome to set up the baby carriage and fetal sign in front of my house if need be.
Although Palin is not some avenger of women and life when she charges rape victims for their own rape kits!! Sick
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/eric-schmeltzer/palins-wasilla-to-rape-vi_b_125047.html
And mcCain double dogs the men he so proudly boasts to be a hero with!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xBiti-ZbeO0

Walter love ya and your views because I really do learn from the opposite views of my own. It is good to look at issues from all sides. Each of us grows up different, have different lives and this is where our views on the important issues come from. Untill you walk in the shoes of others you may never fully understand their reasoning. Although I have come across many democrats that have not walked in the shoes but yet are open minded enough to understand these issues and their important.
Lets agree to disagree Walt but make sure you do your research on these candidates.

Posted by: Walt | September 11, 2008 10:58 AM

A guy like McCain who votes against his own Party's position, 10% of the time really earns his title of "Maverick"

A guy like Obama who votes against his own Party's position only 3% of the time and then on the leftist=-liberal side of the question, earns his titles as "the most liberal, leftist Senator in Congress" and "the least qualified for President".

With the help of Palin, hopefully the McCain/Palin ticket will prevail.

Hopefully too, Palin, now not a hell of a lot more qualified than Obama for the top job, will not be called on to serve until she is ready and able.

I admire her.

Posted by: ROBN | September 11, 2008 11:01 AM

WALT,

A baby and an inanimate clump of cells are two different things and I guess a fetus is somewhere in between those. Anti-abortion people will claim that fetal pain is possible at about 20 weeks, while scientists will tell you that neural pathways and continuous brainwaves allowing pain to be felt aren't present unitl about 28 weeks.

In any event there is no reconciling support of abortion and belief in the concept of a "soul"...something distinguishable from mind (brain activity) and body (brains, bones and muscles). Since "soul" has not been observed, measured, or proven to exist, I don't beleive in it and therefore my only concern about abortion is the possiblity of inflicting physical pain on a fetus, weighed against a possible lifetime of pain for a women who is forced into doing something against her wishes, including the injustice of her being forced to carry a pregnancy by rape to term.

...I noticed you stopped responding to me so I guess I'm getting the cold shoulder...

Posted by: cedarhillresident | September 11, 2008 11:38 AM

walt one more thing...as we know I am one of the less educated people on this board but my opinon represent a large group of the population, I do have one guestion that I can never understand...

Republicans want the government to tell me what to do with my body when it comes to abortion...but the say the it is not the governments job to make sure all Americans bodys are healthy?? hmmm maybe it is just me?

Posted by: sacre blue | September 11, 2008 11:56 AM

Robn,
These fetal clumps and their invisible, intangible eternally tortured soul thingys, must be brought to term so that Walt can make them miserable and make sure that they don't marry one another and destroy his marriage - or worse yet: EVOLVE! nooooo.

Posted by: Walt | September 11, 2008 2:31 PM

ROBN

Weird!

First you call me a liar.

Then you refuse to specify any "lie" that you say I told!

Than you want my constitutional right to free speech removed because I do not agree with you!

Then you complain that I do not respond to your posts!

Really weird and inconsistent Robn!

Posted by: Walt | September 11, 2008 2:51 PM

CEDAR HILL

Your question would better directed to a Repub if you know one.I am not a Repub and do not believe I have ever posted on your topic.

The only new govt.health program with which I am familiar is "Plan D" making it much more affordable for seniors to buy prescription drugs.

I think it is great!

It may surprise you as it did me that the Dems after talking about the need for such a plan for many years,. never passed such a plan when they were in power.

In the last few years, with Repub leadership and votes, quite a few Dem votes. and the dreaded Bush signing it , Plan D became law and had aided millions of old folks to get affordable meds.

If you do not know "Plan D" ask and I will respond.even though ROBN may object again

You might reasonably ask, what health measures have passed Congress under the Dem / Reid/Pelosi leadership since they won control in 2006.

The answer I believe is none, but if you know of any please respond

Thanks

Posted by: Westville Mom | September 11, 2008 2:52 PM

Images abound on the Web. Try this one of a 22-week old fetus BORN AT 22 WEEKS:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-437236/Born-just-22-weeks--Amilla-allowed-home.html

I wonder if she felt pain...would it matter? I bet she does now.

Posted by: ROBN | September 11, 2008 3:45 PM

WALT,

Not so weird. I'm just an optimist and hoped you'd start responding to logical points with some factually informed opinion instead of loaded rhetoric and diversionary tropes.

Take for intance when I wrote that John McCain supports torture (backed up with documentation) and you wrote that he "was" an outspoken opponent of torture.... I described his present position and you described his past discarded postion. Your use of the word "was" makes your sentence technically truthful, but because its so factually misleading about the present it's incredibly misleading and, since you should know better, I'd call it a lie. If you can't tell the difference, maybe your momma didn't raise you well.

Diversions, Conflations, Half-Truths and Bald-Faced Lies have been GOP staples for the past eight years and its coming to an end. See you at the polls.

Posted by: robn | September 11, 2008 4:14 PM

WVM,

It matters to me if something or someone experiences pain. What doesn't matter to me is the mythology of the "soul", unless that mythology interferes with my life.

Posted by: cedarhillresident | September 11, 2008 4:45 PM

Gee WVM I thought walt was going to post the picture. And yes it does matter but I still stand by choose. I am sorry. And as robn, it does matter if someone or something feels pain. Same argument that vegetarians have. And yes I realize that this is a human... but they would beg to differ with you on that argument. I know not a good example but they would be showing you pictures of how cows and chicken are killed but yet we still consume them. I will not change my mind. When I see a seventh grader standing their 20 weeks preg. because she did not know better, when a women is raped ect. I stand by it.

Posted by: Walt | September 11, 2008 4:52 PM

You state that my response was "technically true" but that as it did not agree with you, you have decided to deem it a "lie"

Weird!

Cedar Hill Washington Post vote references show McCain voting for a ban on "torture" in an earlier vote listed, and as "not voting" on more recent related bill.

As her posts show more truth or consistency than yours even though she usually disagrees with me, I prefer to use them.

Your "Youtube" references mean nothing as I see it.. Give me a Washington Post summary of the bill, and the McCain vote and I will look at it.

Perhaps there is a bill that backs up your claim that McCain favors torture or perhaps you are twisting facts again, turning "true" into "lie" as in your last post.

I consider you a BS'er and will not respond to your future stuff unless it appears to be more sensible.

Posted by: cedarhillresident | September 12, 2008 8:27 AM

Love ya walt and Robn and WVM. think this all goes to show this is why we vote. Because we all see things differently. And your opinion and mine are not wrong they are just different. And through these differences we can learn from each other. One thing we can all agree on is we all love our country and the people that live here! And we all want what is best for it no matter how which view you have.

Posted by: sacre blue | September 12, 2008 8:28 AM

Walt,
help me out here; what is sensible about torturing rape victims and gay people? would it not make more sense to abort gay fetuses, or would that deprive you of the pleasure of attempting to make their adult lives miserable?, how would you satisfy your fetus fetish? where would the next pope come from without a gay abortion survivor? I'm off to church now.

Posted by: Walt | September 12, 2008 10:02 AM

Robn cites for her claim that McCain supports torture, Derrick Jackson, a Boston Post staffer apparently writing an opinion piece for his liberal leaning paper. He cites no specific bill in Congress as his source as I read it.

Cedar Hill cites the Washington Post, also a liberal leaning paper, owned by the same folks I think, which, claiming fact, not opinion indicates a specific bill on that topic which was passed into law in late 2007, and the Post says McCain did not vote.

Is Robn, as usual full of baloney, or just conflating as she likes to say?

Don't know.

It is possible that there was a bill in Feb.'08 on the topic and that McCain didn't like part of it, but Jackson's unspecific opinion in the Globe does not make it so.

Anyone have accurate info on Robn's claim that McCain voted pro-torture?

Posted by: Walt | September 12, 2008 10:21 AM

Found the issue discussed in another liberal NYTimes opinion piece.

Says McCain supported veto of a Dem proposed bill aimed at the CIA.

McCain says the provisions of the previously passed ( and led and vored for by McCain) in late 2007 (and cited in Cedar Hill's post) bill already covered the topic and made illegal the torture methods also cited by the Dem bill.

That to me does not mean he supports torture as ROBN claims,,, just means he is not taken in by redundant efforts by Reid/Pelosi.

Posted by: cedarhillresident | September 12, 2008 10:39 AM

Walt this is the bill

This bill requires the intelligence community to abide by the same standards as articulated in the Army Field Manual and bans waterboarding.

http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=110&session=2&vote=00022

Posted by: ROBN | September 12, 2008 1:14 PM

WALT,

This is just the opinion of a baloney filled BS'r, but passing a new (maybe redundant) but more explicit law is better than letting a hubristic executive continue to trample the old law. McCain labled waterboarding as torture but refused to vote for a law that explicitly banned the CIA from conducting waterboarding and other forms of torture including:

stress positions
hypothermia
threats to the detainee and his family
severe sleep deprivation
severe sensory deprivation

So at the minimum, John McCain could have gotten what he claimed he wanted and banned what he admitteed is a war crime. If you think thats the pricipaled postition of a maverick, you're sick dude. This is Gestapo stuff plain and simple. ...and please don't don't try to resuctate the old myth of the ticking time bomb...torture doesn't elicit reliable information.

Posted by: Walt | September 12, 2008 3:46 PM

McCain says he got what he wanted as a ban on torture in the Fall 2006 which is cirrent law, Redundancy and apparently public release of details are mentioned as reasons for opposition, as well as the political reason that the supposed redundant Bill was Dem=originated proposal not needed.

Do I claim to know the problem between the two? Of course not.

Inasmuch aa the anti-torture provisions are now the law of the land and McCain supports that law, it is asinine to say he supports torture because he did not go along with the new Dem wishes.

The comparison with the Gestapo is ridiculous conflation.

Posted by: ROBN | September 12, 2008 5:30 PM

WALT,

"The comparison with the Gestapo is ridiculous"....really?

Do these photos of Abu Ghraib amke you proud to be an American?

WARNING...NOT CHILD-SAFE

http://images.google.com/imgres?imgurl=http://www.mindfully.org/Reform/2004/Abu-Ghraib-Prison-Photos11jun04p02.jpg&imgrefurl=http://www.mindfully.org/Reform/2004/Abu-Ghraib-Prison-Photos11jun04.htm&h=310&w=469&sz=40&hl=en&start=1&usg=__by_CoY8beZA66XlsWArN0CuusAU=&tbnid=YyceV2ORXF1DvM:&tbnh=85&tbnw=128&prev=/images%3Fq%3Dabu%2Bghraib%26gbv%3D2%26hl%3Den

Posted by: cedarhillresident | September 12, 2008 5:45 PM

Walt the dems wish was them to follow the existing laws which they were not doing! He voted Nay on making them follow the laws that were already on the books (which where not and are not being followed)!!

Be warned this contain very upsetting video!!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jy3O-R8Nn2I

Posted by: cedarhillresident | September 12, 2008 6:16 PM

Ps WVM You will vote for these people to stop abortion (which will never happen even if they are elected) but you are ok with America with this?? Your ok with out sourcing our jobs which will continue with mccain and even grow? I guess I will never understand :( Even if abortion was stopped it would just go back to back room alley ones which is why the law was created in the first place.

Posted by: Chris Gray | September 14, 2008 5:06 AM

It should be well known by now that I don't think much of Rosa nor did I think much of her mother. Thus, I won't repeat myself.

Still, years before my eldest brother was ordered to parade his unit's tanks through New Haven (after a bombing of the "Yale Whale", their hockey arena), a fantastic piece of art graced Yale's central Beinecke Plaza for quite some time. Now it is relegated to the courtyard of Morse Residential College.

It was always called "The Lipstick" and I must confess I do not recall the artists name but it looks quite like a giant tube of that substance mounted on tank tracks. (My elder brother sells much aluminum just to house such tubes today. It makes him money.)

I'm thinking it is time to send it to Alaska, to sit outside the Governor's office. It will take the pit-bulls and pigs out of the equation but still make a point.

Posted by: Westville Mom | September 15, 2008 12:04 AM

Cedar Hill--I think you are putting words in my mouth. Hillary and I agree: abortion should be "safe, legal and rare" (with emphasis on rare)--at least until our society can evolve to the point where true reverence for human life is achieved. No candidate has thus far contradicted that view. Roe v Wade is debated more for its "legislating from the bench" (like the Kelo case) and states' rights issues. But let's not forget that most people (including Hillary but not Barack) believe in limits. She said she can "support" a ban on late-term abortions with restrictions. A civilized society SHOULD be debating the limits involved in stopping a beating human heart. [BTW 4 wks. after conception]
As for NAFTA, I opposed it when Clinton signed it, but realize now that Pandora's box is open. Our best hope is to offer incentives to encourage business to stay here & move here. I believe McCain can do that & Obama will tax us back to the stone age. You & I just disagree on tactics.

Posted by: robn | September 15, 2008 8:29 AM

Claus Oldenburg did the Lipstick (tank). I believe it was fabricated at Lippencott in North Haven.

Posted by: Walt | September 15, 2008 9:57 AM

What a waste of money!

Overpriced junk adorns many public buildings (Giaimo Govt. Building on Orande St. on Orange St. Bldg. on Orange St, Miller Library, in Hamden and probably a hundred others.

Cause --- the law which requires 1% (?) of govt. financed building be spent on "art"

Result, sculptures which would not sell fot $13.00 on the open market go for hundreds of thousands of $$$$$$ if placed in front of a government huilding.

Why not sell the "Lipstick" to the Palin campaign as a symbol and use the money for Q Ave repairs, or does Yale now own it?

Posted by: robn | September 15, 2008 10:21 AM

WALT,

Yeah you're right...we shouldn't spend 1/100 of a decimal point on public art when we could be supporting the grossly underfunded military budget.

http://www.warresisters.org/pages/piechart.htm

Posted by: Walt | September 15, 2008 1:01 PM

ROBN

You are conflating again ( your ridiculous, pompous, Obama type of word)

You miss the point that we are not only paying for probably unsellable art but paying prices that are tremendously inflated

The price is set not on the value of the art object itself but on an artificial ridiculous price determined by multiplying the TOTAL cost of the project by 1% ( the figure I recall) That is .01, not the .0001 which appears to be the figure in your post above.

The metal ( bunches of grapes I think) hanging on Miller Library near Hamden
Town Hall cost about $40,000, says memory and is similar to stuff now on clearance at Lowe's for about $15 per section.

For a total of $60 you could replace the junk hanging on the Library and probably no one would notice.

Part of what I assume was the "art" expenditures at that Library were "artsy-fartsy" directional signs that no one could fathom. After a few (I saw one happen) accidents, the cops put up old-fashioned understandable, one-way, stop and directional signs which seem to have cured the problem.

Another arts world boondoggle, as I see it.

Posted by: ROBN | September 15, 2008 3:53 PM

WALT,

The Oldenburg Lipstick sculpture was built out of plywood by students as a Vietnam war protest (its a tube of lipstick on tank tread...get it?) It was later reproduced in metal and given ...free ..donated to the University....not publically funded, nor on public land. Your lack of knowledge about public vs private, as well as your lack of interest for major works of art shows that you're a maroon...but maybe "maroon" is too complicated and elitist a word since, like "conflate" it involves the use of two syllables and may be beyond your grasp. See you at the polls!