I remember reading a great quote about the US election:

"The pro-life party wants more criminals killed, and the pro-choice party wants less criminals killed. Go Figure"

Well to be fair to the democrats... statistics seem to suggest that it just may be that people who would likely be criminals are more likely then average to be aborted.

Seems to be that you're the run of the mill Libertarian. 

I really dont mean to be an ass, but how is it that you think Republicans want to stay out of everyone's lives?  Republicans want to teach Christianity (Creationism, absitence only) in school, want to tell consenting adults who they can and cannot marry, and so forth.  The only thing I can think of that the Democrats would be intruding upon is gun laws, though there are other things they are together with conservatives on, such as entertainment ratings.

Thats what she said. I can bet $1000 that the father of the child won't marry her daughter. Ask Obama about his parents...lol

I could've sworn I read somewhere that the so-called father posted on his myspace that he didn't want kids. You think this guy wants marriage? It sounds like they both are being forced into it so the family can save face. Palin probably also forced her daughter to have the baby so they won't look like hypocrites in the political arena. She better fund the sex-ed next time.

Also, why would a woman with a pregnant teenage daughter and a 5 month old with down syndrome accept the VP nomination? Didn't she realize that she was exposing her family to the scrutiny of the world? Even if the media left it alone, someone would've obviously picked up the story like the Edwards affair. Also, how can she maintain her duties as VP with all these family problems? Who will mentor her teenage daughter on being a mom?

If something happened to old McCain as president...I'll leave the rest up to you guys.

Maybe McCain just wants to have her help him win the election then have her retire after citing family issues then choose Lieberman as his VP.

Two reasons.

1) The problem is you are looking at the party, and not the candidates.  McCain is about as close as you'll get to a credible libretarian like candidate for president unless you count Ron Paul. 

His plans to cut wastefull government spending by vetoing billls with Earmarks, make laws to make tax hikes harder and have a balanced budget ammendment (except times of emergency) will do more for Libretarians than anything Obama has proposed...

In fact,  when it comes to Obama... the Windfall tax against gas companys is about as un Libretarian as you can get... it's a law that's going to tax people.... whenever the government feels the said people have made too much money.  How does that even work?

2) The social issues are never going to change.  The democrat leaders don't want gay marriage to pass.  Republican leaders don't want aborition abolished.  Those issues are too good to work up the far left and right to arms.

Look at what the 2004 "lets make gay marriage super extra illegal!" movement did for Bush.  If it actually became legal... look out.

Even if he tried to appoint pro abortion judges the democratic senate would just block them.

Excuse me? None of the social issues are ever going to change?  Is that why blacks and women have the right to vote, and segregation is no more?

Social issues change.  Just more slowly and with a lot more tears and effort and bickering than economic issues.  The reason I vote liberal now is because of the conservatives that try to push their values on the rest of us, and decide what we can and can't do.  Manus totally hit the nail on the head....

I would probably vote republican if religious values didn't come so staunchly entrenched in the Republican ticket.  I'm pro-gun, and pro-freedom-to-do-whatever-the-hell-you-want, but living in an area so thickly infested with religious conservatives trying to tell me and my family how to live our lives, I just can't fathom voting for any republican any more. 

I worked for a tech company here that had two born again christians as pres and vp.  My family is catholic, and I'm the kinda casual catholic that goes to church pretty much Christmas and Easter.  I get disappointed looks from the members of the congregation that know me, but for the most part the church doesn't give any of us shit for how we lead our lives.  These born agains kept trying to 'disciple' me constantly and get me to go to their super church.  Two weeks after I politely requested they not speak to me about 'discipling', I was fired.  I suppose I could have gotten a lawyer and fought about it, but I got a better job immediately after making more money and not working for douchebags... so it was more or less a blessing in disguise.

I've had the occasional 'liberal' debate me about gun control and why I'm pro gun, but at the end of the debate, they're generally willing to get over it and be pals and drink a beer and talk about sports.  Not so the religious conservatives.  If you don't agree with them, you're wrong, and you're going to hell, and they will tell you that over and over.

This is really why it is moronic for a country to have a two party system ... The opposite party tends to view them based on the beliefs of the most extreme 5% of the party.

I don't hate her, I think she is a dangerous woman who shouldn't be one bathtub slip away from the presidency.

Ok i'll put it better. None of the social issues are going to change in the next 4 to 8 years.

Most people are still against gay marriage. Like 70+%... and most congressmen are two cowwardly to take one of the team anymore.

Voting for one guy against gay marriage isn't going to make it more likely to happen then voting for another guy against gay marriage.

Also... McCain is about as opposite of religious conservative as someone could get.

Obama is actually more religious.  Which is why there is talk he could still some of the Evangelist base.

Heck Obama wants to expand Bush's "Faith based funding" initiative.

You are aware that the politically sound thing to do with a running mate like this is to get all of the bad news out early before the convention..right?

The McCain Campaign has been pretty clear both on and off the record about the fact that they vetted her thoroughly and well before he made the pick (note the comments of this article and that even internet active GoP leaning nobodies were aware of Palin as a good choice in May). If I can find the article they actually explained the process a bit, they basically had 25 people working on her vetting proces.

And while the story that McCain didn't send a team to check the newpaper clippings archives in Alaska Libraries is true, it is only true because the rumor that you can't access that information online is false. They actually did get paper copies from quite a few places anyways by request, the only place they didn't was her home town because they felt they couldn't keep it under wraps if they had.

edit:

"First, a team of some 25 people working under Culvahouse culled information from public sources for Palin and other prospective candidates without their knowledge. For all, news reports, speeches, financial and tax return disclosures, litigation, investigations, ethical charges, marriages and divorces were reviewed."

Source

McCain vetted Palin. In advance. Thoroughly. Hopefully we can get over the hump on this rumor sooner rather than later..its becoming somewhat of a routine honestly =P