I'm not sure I'm following the logic here.  The economy is in shambles after 8 years of a Republican president, during whose term a decent federal surplus (which was amassed during a Democratic presidency, after 12 years of federal deficits under Republican presidencies) became the worst deficit we've ever had and during which time this country has become more dependent on foreign dollars than ever.  We currently have a president with a prior record of being handed corporations, running them into the ground economically, and leaving scott-free, and his economic record with this country over the last 8 years has been no better.  We're also in a situation where more and more of our country's assets/companies (e.g., look at Budweiser) are getting bought out by investors from other countries--America owns less and less of America.  American assets can be bought pretty cheaply at this point by those with much stronger currency than the dollar.  Of course I'm not saying that all of this can be pinned on a single president, but I also think it would be pretty ridiculous to say that the federal deficit, decreasing value of the dollar, and federal lack of regulation over the banking industry (e.g., with respect to housing loans) are completely unrelated to the policies of the current administration. 

I'm not making a broad generalization to Republicans here--in fact there are many Republicans who would say that Bush is not following principles of fiscal conservatism at all--or saying that Obama will be any kind of magic bullet if elected.  I'm just saying that whoever comes into the presidency would be hard pressed to do much worse with the economy than Bush has--bad economic results and policy are unfortunately not limited to any one party. 

I feel sorry for whoever inherits our economy, whether it be McCain or Obama, because I think they're in a losing situation here; either way, I think the economy is going to get a lot worse before it gets better--we've just seen the tip of the iceberg.  I'm also not willing to bet that either McCain or Obama will do anything to help the situation.

Talk to my cousin.  She was pregnant in the car with her husband driving.  A drunk driver hit them and killed her husband and the baby died.  The drunk driver got CHARGED and CONVICTED of double manslaughter.  He is someone's boy toy now in jail, though he should be hung in the street. 

I don't need to talk with anyone... what happenned to your family has nothing to do with what I was stating..

You were incorrect in stating that ALL states charge for murder (FYI, it's usually Manslaughter and not murder) in the death of an unborn child in a DUI accident...

That is all my post was about...

-Shane

What a sad decline for the Democratic party. From Harry Truman who stood up to any US opponent, to Obama, who seems to be the great appeaser. From Truman's "The buck stops here", to Obama's "That's above my pay grade". Has the party completely lost its collective cojones?

To see a Democrat who had some backbone, read up on the Berlin blockade and the containment policy. Thats the kind of Democratic candidate that I could vote for. It's a shame that the once great party has so been captured by the left, that there is no place in it for a Harry Truman, and that's a sad loss for both the party and the nation.

So you make the exception to you belief of not killing to murder a innocent baby, but not for a cold blooded murderer? Please show me how you come to that conclusion..

And you're living in a fantasy land if you truly believe that the economic policies of the current administration, which are quite obviously irresponsible and in many cases also involve a lack of regulation, have nothing to do with our current economic situation.

I definitely think that was part of the problem, and I'm in complete agreement that we shouldn't be bailing out the banks.  At the same time, I don't think that people who bought more house than they can afford (since what we're talking gets into real estate) should be placing all of the blame on the 'predatory lender' either.  This has become a pet peeve of mine...  It's the buyer's responsibility to fully investigate what they're getting themselves into before making what's likely to be one of the largest investments of their life (e.g., to learn how an ARM and variable interest work if they didn't know it already).  It's also clearly the buyer's responsibility to understand their own budget and to determine for themselves the monthly payments they can afford, rather than blindly trusting the advice of a real estate agent who wants to make a commission.

If someone lost the ability to pay a mortgage due to severe illness, disability, or death that's a pretty horrible situation, and I have all the sympathy in the world.  But if they lost it because they didn't bother taking the effort to learn the terms of their loan, or because they took a gamble by 'betting' that the market would keep going up and assuming they'd be able to sell before the balloon hit, I have no sympathy whatsoever.  When my wife and I bought our home, we did it with a safe, fixed interest loan that we knew we could afford, even though it meant getting a little less house.  If someone else is now in trouble because they decided to play it risky rather than settle for a smaller house they could clearly afford regardless of what would subsequently happen to the real estate market, they are simply dealing with the consequences of their own poor choices, for which they alone should be accountable.  Similarly, if a bank is in trouble because it financed loans that were obviously risky, it is nobody's responsibility but the bank's to deal with those consequences.

... I just did.  The entire post was drafted in response to that precise question.

Restated: I don't believe that life begins at conception, and therefore do not consider a developing fetus an "innocent baby" until it is viable outside the womb. 

That said, I am pro-choice but NOT pro-abortion and whole-heartedly agree with the DNC's statement that abortion should be "safe, legal and rare."  I just happen to think that preventing unwanted pregnancies (such as by strengthening sex education programs in public schools, making birth control more readily available and removing the stigma from sex in general) is the better approach to take, as it  addresses not only abortion but also the social issues arising from those unwanted or unplanned pregnancies that are carried to term.  That's why I'm a fan of Planned Parenthood, which is not so much pro-abortion as it is pro- ... well, planned parenthood.  

And yes, I agree that treating a forced abortion as murder sets a double standard.  It should be classified as its own crime.

Yes it is.  But I also believe that part of the problem is the excessive deficit that we have, and weak regulatory systems, which helped plant the seeds for the stupidity of lenders and individual buyers that followed.  I usually don't directly quote others here, but something I read today in a blog about the housing market really rang true to me.  It was concerning an article about an economist named Roubini, who predicted the current housing problem and was labeled as a "pessimist" and "doomer" for simply being realistic:

"The ’90s were an eventful time for an international economist like Roubini. Throughout the decade, one emerging economy after another was beset by crisis, beginning with Mexico’s in 1994. Panics swept Asia, including Thailand, Indonesia and Korea, in 1997 and 1998. The economies of Brazil and Russia imploded in 1998. Argentina’s followed in 2000. Roubini began studying these countries and soon identified what he saw as their common weaknesses. On the eve of the crises that befell them, he noticed, most had huge current-account deficits (meaning, basically, that they spent far more than they made), and they typically financed these deficits by borrowing from abroad in ways that exposed them to the national equivalent of bank runs. Most of these countries also had poorly regulated banking systems plagued by excessive borrowing and reckless lending. Corporate governance was often weak, with cronyism in abundance.

Good thing we don’t have anything like that happening here in the good ol’ USA."

It's true--that's exactly where the US is today, and I really don't have much hope that either Obama or McCain will do anything to help the problem--or that it can be resolved any time soon.