Sarah Palin's Speech

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
101

[quote]Gene_lasker wrote:
You should perhaps do a bit more research. I am a graduate student who specializes in bioinformatics.
[/quote]

Congratulations? Your posts don’t demonstrate this. Organized education isn’t the end all, be all of the learning process. Perhaps you should simply take some time to examine both sides of the argument.

You’re joking, right? It’s all in the semantics, and there is clearly a difference between change amongst a species, and change resulting in a new species. Just because somebody told you otherwise does not make it true.

Lie? No. Oversimplify and fail to bring up any criticisms? Absolutely.

So why isn’t the theory portion up for debate?

You should get out more. What is exactly is it that you are afraid of? If the theory is correct, it will stand on its own. None of the mentioned politicians have even attempted to dispute evolution, and none have claimed that creationism is a science. This does not mean that it should not be mentioned in schools, and it certainly doesn’t mean that the criticisms of evolution should be disregarded.

[quote]
And yes there is an explanation of how the building blocks of life appeared. Again, if you had actually gotten an education in the matter, they are first introduced in the following courses.[/quote]

Yes, at absolutely pure happen chance with little to no stability amongst the chemical compounds. Furthermore, it does nothing to adequately explain how a group of hydrogen atoms turned into carbon atoms, or even how the hydrogen atoms even came about in the first place.

[quote]
Organismal Biology and Phylogenies
Molecular Genetics
BSCI 106 and 207[/quote]

You just referred me to the specific classes offered by your university. Do you want me to start throwing around class numbers, too? It’s irrelevant.

My education history has been shared before, and I would be willing to share it again, however it does nothing to further this argument, and it should not need to be a prerequisite to debate on the internet. If you really care, I would be happy to share it elsewhere.

That’s enough for this hijack. You fail to recognize the points. The goal isn’t to end the teaching of evolution, or turn everybody into Christian creationists, the goal is to teach children how to think for themselves by introducing them to competing theories and letting them decide for themselves. This is far from the only issue that could use some alternative thinking.

102

[quote]tedro wrote:
Rocky101 wrote:
Palin: Iraq war ‘a task that is from God’

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080903/ap_on_el_pr/cvn_palin_iraq_war

Quite trying to misrepresent her. Post the whole statement, not a liberal news article.

“Pray for our military. Pray for our military men and women who are striving to do what is right for this country - that our leaders, our national leaders are sending them out on a task that is from God,” the Alaska governor said in her address posted on the website of the Wasilla Assembly of God.

She is saying to pray that what we our doing, going into Iraq, is the will of God. In other words, pray that we are doing God’s will. She doesn’t say she knows God’s will, simply to pray that we are upholding it.

"And for some, Ms. Palin�??s first months in office here were so jarring �?? and so alienating �?? that an effort was made to force a recall. About 100 people attended a meeting to discuss the effort, which was covered in the local press, but the idea was dropped.

Shortly after becoming mayor, former city officials and Wasilla residents said, Ms. Palin approached the town librarian about the possibility of banning some books, though she never followed through and it was unclear which books or passages were in question.

Ann Kilkenny, a Democrat who said she attended every City Council meeting in Ms. Palin�??s first year in office, said Ms. Palin brought up the idea of banning some books at one meeting. �??They were somehow morally or socially objectionable to her,�?? Ms. Kilkenny said.

The librarian, Mary Ellen Emmons, pledged to �??resist all efforts at censorship,�?? Ms. Kilkenny recalled. Ms. Palin fired Ms. Emmons shortly after taking office but changed course after residents made a strong show of support. Ms. Emmons, who left her job and Wasilla a couple of years later, declined to comment for this article."
Link to this:

From your article:


In 1996, Ms. Palin suggested to the local paper, The Frontiersman, that the conversations about banning books were �??rhetorical.�??

Nothing wrong with bringing up a rhetorical statement for the sake of debate, especially at the city level. More rhetorical debate amongst commissioners could do a lot of places a lot of good.

Your post is lame. If you want to attack her because of her stances and statements, at least use accurate ones.
[/quote]

Boy you God Warriors stick together. When I think of book banning I think of a short german guy with a funny mustache. He envoked God too while he burned and gassed children.

103

So, once again, the discussion of REAL issues like whether the Government should supply Welfare and Healthcare, protect borders, intrude in people’s lives, levy excessive taxes, etc turns into whether someone will make a good president based on whether they support abortion or believe in evolution.

104

[quote]tedro wrote:
You just referred me to the specific classes offered by your university. Do you want me to start throwing around class numbers, too? It’s irrelevant. [/quote]

No it’s not. But you know damn well that classes you’ll invoke in the defense of your argument don’t rely on the scientific method. [/quote]

105

[quote]Tiribulus wrote:

Here’s a very simplified rundown:
Of the people who do, a very large number do make an informed decision. Toward the right people who more or less believe this country is best largely as founded. Toward the left people who believe that a socialist state, in which the government plays a much larger role, should be forced on the public for it’s own good. Or for their own good if they’ve become dependent on that in a variety of ways.
[/quote]

That is hardly making an informed decision, if the majority of people were making informed decisions we would not have ended up with these two candidates. Defining party lines and then voting according to them is not making an informed decision about the candidates, that is relinquishing your responsibility towards doing any research.

Small government is a red herring. You can’t be small government and support things like bans on stem cell research, abortion rights, gay marriage, “moral values”…etc. Those are all big government traits. The Right has increased government interference just as much as the left. They just do it in different ways. You don’t have Patriot acts, Guantanamo bay, 2 physical wars and an ideological war, when you are advocating a small government. You don’t engage in nation building and absolutely, god awful, insanely reckless spending overseas, the likes of which make even the most insane leftist look like Ebenezer Scrooge, and get to call yourself Small Government.

The myth of small government that is sold, bought and paid for has almost everything to do with lower taxes, which, at the end of the day, is apparently more important to the average American than any other issue that effects the lives of those around them. Who the fuck cares about anyone else, when you save a couple hundred bucks a year versus if the other guy was in office.

Meanwhile, the left deludes themselves into thinking that, if given the opportunity, people will generally be willing and able to not be such assholes all the time and maybe, just maybe, sacrifice a bit to help someone who needs it. Then they go off and start up pathetic social programs that piss money away and let them feel good about themselves.

This country was founded on some amazing, revolutionary, complete and genius ideas. We would do well to respect them and to listen to them, but if we are incapable of accepting the possibility that over 232 years, not every single one of those ideas is fully compatible with the world and the nation we live in today. Then we will have lost touch with what the founding fathers envisioned, and with what they fought to create. Likewise, if the left would learn to accept that in fact, many of the ‘traditional values’ and ‘conservative ideals’ that are triumphed by the GOP, really aren’t that unreasonable or illogical, and that, despite being old, the Constitution and the Bill of Rights still possess excellent information, they’d stop trying to reinvent the wheel all the time and fix things that aren’t broken.

This Us vs. Them mentality though. Endless bickering, pissing contests and mindless… Doesn’t it get old? How many times do you need to butt heads, doing the same exact arguments over and over again, that only serve to make people on the left more leftist and people on the right more rightist, and after as much time as you all have been going at it, in fact, the results stay the same. RIGHT BELIEVES THIS, LEFT BELIEVES THAT. blah blah blah.

/rant

106

[quote]Malevolence wrote:

Small government is a red herring. You can’t be small government and support things like bans on stem cell research, abortion rights, gay marriage, “moral values”…etc. Those are all big government traits.[/quote]

It is not a Red Herring. It might be more correct to say that between the 2 major parties, Small Government is a myth.

Except for the Red Herring line, you are correct in the passage above. The “Republican Party”-- ie The Big Tent Republican Party has moved far away from it’s Conservative roots. Largely, the party is no longer “conservative”. “Conservative” has been perverted into a derogatory term by the Left to mean “Social Conservative”. “Neocons” are essentially Socially Conservative Liberal Spenders.

However, the Republican Wing of the Republican Party, Costitution Party, Libertarian Party, and (small “L”) libertarian Independents largely believe that the Federal Government has no ABSOLUTELY no business in those things listed above, and think the States should decide for themselves.

Taxes are a valid issue/concern. They affect how/where we spend our remaining dollars. They can cripple personal and business budgets. The US was founded largely on the premise of fighting unfair taxes and tyranny by King George. Lowering taxes is absolutely a valid platform to run on.

107

[quote]lixy wrote:
tedro wrote:
You just referred me to the specific classes offered by your university. Do you want me to start throwing around class numbers, too? It’s irrelevant.

No it’s not. But you know damn well that classes you’ll invoke in the defense of your argument don’t rely on the scientific method.

[/quote]

Nor do they need to. Neither Palin or I have suggested that creationism is science. It need not be taught as science, but it should be mentioned, as should the criticisms of our current theory of evolution.

108

Two things—

  1. If you want to start ANOTHER origins argument, kindly do it away from this thread guys.

If on the other hand, you want to debate the very specific question of whether or not Palin’s views create problems for a) electability b) qualifications for the job c) effect on society d) effect on education and the schools e) effect on other nations opinions, or any other aspect closely related to this POTUS election, feel free to do it here. As long as it remains on topic and related to this thread, and not the viewpoints as a whole.

[quote]Schwarzfahrer wrote:
jakshafter wrote:

To do this in any other science field would get you laughed at.

Bullshit. You do it all the time. Especially in Mathematics.
[/quote]

  1. pure mathematics is different from most other fields of science as well, except perhaps hardcore theoretical physics and theoretical quantum chemistry. It is certainly different from ALL biological ones in the way extrapolations can be made. In pure math a set of postulates can be proven and extrapolated based on the invariable laws of math. The same cannot be said of anything related to any biological field.

Feel free to re-argue your point with a different example Schwarz, but please do it away from this thread as well.

Now, let’s keep talking about the election…

109

[quote]lixy wrote:
tedro wrote:
Rocky101 wrote:
Palin: Iraq war ‘a task that is from God’

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080903/ap_on_el_pr/cvn_palin_iraq_war

Quite trying to misrepresent her. Post the whole statement, not a liberal news article.

“Pray for our military. Pray for our military men and women who are striving to do what is right for this country - that our leaders, our national leaders are sending them out on a task that is from God,” the Alaska governor said in her address posted on the website of the Wasilla Assembly of God.

She is saying to pray that what we our doing, going into Iraq, is the will of God. In other words, pray that we are doing God’s will. She doesn’t say she knows God’s will, simply to pray that we are upholding it.

That might have been her intent. I don’t know and neither do you.

What’s certain is that politicians who speak of wars of aggression as “a task that is from God” should be looked at suspiciously.[/quote]

No, that was obviously her intent. Go ahead, read the whole statement. Twice if you need to. Just because it was not what you wanted to hear, does not make it not so.

110

So far I’d have to say the Palin pick is a homerun for McCain. I can’t speak for all conservative-leaning voters, but personally I’m very “blah” on McCain himself. His history is one of mushy compromises and outright treachery (as viewed from a conservative stance). Every piece of legislation with his name + a Democrat (Lieberman, Kennedy, and so on) are outright assaults on conservative viewpoints. It’s no wonder the “base” wasn’t excited that THIS is the guy we ended up with.

Palin comes across as a very down-to-earth mom who walks the talk and can get shit done. Her actual history isn’t really that far outside of the neocon reality that “real” conservatives are fighting against, but she looks pretty good on the issues of guns, abortion, and domestic energy. And I think a lot of conservative voters are inferring from this that she will be good on other issues important to them as well. Basically she fills the gaps in McCain’s resume.

The speech last night worked. By that I mean that it accomplished what it was supposed to accomplish: introduce us to the VP, basically outline what she stands for, and then blast the other team to bits. That’s all the speech was intended to do, so those complaining that she didn’t lay out a detailed plan for the country are missing the point.

If McCain similarly fails to outline a roadmap of his policies, THAT will be the correct time to jump. Palin is the VP, so we should expect her to be slightly less experienced, and in that regard the Obama ticket is totally upside down.

Palin comes with some baggage, definitely. Some real questions exist about how she did as mayor in Wasilla, and some people think she abused her power as Governor as well. That stuff will either stick or it won’t. But the current media attacks on her “values” and her family are completely WORTHLESS and totally beside the point.

Likewise, the rightwinger’s propping her up as the ultimate Anti-Feminazi is pretty irrelevant. Both sides need to focus on what she has DONE if they want to be taken seriously.

111

[quote]Rocky101 wrote:
Boy you God Warriors stick together. When I think of book banning I think of a short german guy with a funny mustache. He envoked God too while he burned and gassed children. [/quote]

I love watching these God-hating little fucks spew their fear like a dog pissing down his own leg.

Have you nothing left but to compare the right-wing to Hitler? You sorry loser assed motherfuckers have been saying the same tired shit for 20 of the last 28 years.

Guess what? We are no closer to Hitler now than we were when your mother was considering having an abortion with you.

Please. Either try an new mantra or shut the fuck up. This is just too much. I have to wonder what it is you are so fucking scared of. A woman? Religion? Faith? Your own fucking shadow?

112

[quote]Rockscar wrote:
I think she did a great job. I also think it went a long way to capture the audience with real issues we face in a dangerous world…one that the Dems deny exist.

She opened up a can of whoop-ass for sure.

To not address her family issues was perfect. This did not phase her…keep the attacks coming because that is all they have. Don’t even talk about her experience. That arguement is dead for the Democrats, yet alive for Republicans because yes, OBAMAs actual contributions for reform or “change” are minimal compared to the VP in the GOP side.

The Republican ticket is strong. They effectively distanced themselves from the current administration, which negates the “Another 4 of the last 8 years” rhetoric.

The Democratic ticket is weak, however it is strong in that people voting for OBAMA are voting against Republicans and that’s it. They do not care who is on the ticket, they just know they want Republicans out. They want to believe “Change” is coming, but don’t even know how.[/quote]

Well said. We really have a far left ticket and a moderate one. I am confident that the largest population of this country is not very close to one side or the other in DC. Americans as a whole for the most part are moderates. That is the strength of the GOP ticket. They have 2 republicans that are far from establishment canditates.

113

[quote]Malevolence wrote:
<<< Defining party lines and then voting according to them is not making an informed decision about the candidates, that is relinquishing your responsibility towards doing any research.

<<<<<<<>>>>>

/rant[/quote]

Please interpret anything I say along these lines as relating to ideas rather than parties. I didn’t make that clear.

A LOT of conservatives are not happy with the Republican party, including me, but most liberals are thrilled with the direction of the Democrats.

I vote according to a set of principles and what has the highest likelihood to do the most toward preserving them. That has been reduced to a lesser of 2 evils endeavor for quite a while. 3rd party is all principled and everything, but altogether impractical. This time the choice is so clear that even Mccain looks good by comparison.

What I meant by informed is that they have some actually formed viewpoints on issues as opposed to people who are swayed by packaging.

Like it or not, campaigns are about that packaging because those voters are the only ones that represent additional votes.

Expect the level of discourse to get much worse before and if it ever gets any better, but in Sept. 08 Palin’s speech was a rousing success. Actually anything that keeps Obama away from the courts is a rousing success in my view. If it were not for the courts I might even vote for Obama just to let people see what happens when you give these socialists the legislative AND the executive branch. Last time it lead to a GOP takeover of the house and the senate, but people have short memories.

114

Well said Trib, and very close to my own experience as well. The Republican party has almost completely been usurped by the Neocon movement, which I hate.

On the other hand, the Democrat Party seems to be composed almost exclusively of closet Socialists and Environmental Elitists.

Which leaves me feeling woefully under-represented. I can’t say for sure, but I think that a lot of the Republican base feels the same way, and thus is looking for someone, ANYONE to hang their hopes on. As such, the celebration over Palin may be a bit premature.

115

[quote]rainjack wrote:
Rocky101 wrote:
Boy you God Warriors stick together. When I think of book banning I think of a short german guy with a funny mustache. He envoked God too while he burned and gassed children.

I love watching these God-hating little fucks spew their fear like a dog pissing down his own leg.

Have you nothing left but to compare the right-wing to Hitler? You sorry loser assed motherfuckers have been saying the same tired shit for 20 of the last 28 years.

Guess what? We are no closer to Hitler now than we were when your mother was considering having an abortion with you.

Please. Either try an new mantra or shut the fuck up. This is just too much. I have to wonder what it is you are so fucking scared of. A woman? Religion? Faith? Your own fucking shadow?

[/quote]

Settle down I don’t hate God I hate people who try to push their morality down my throat. And don’t bring my mother into it, internet warrior, I am catholic we don’t believe in abortion either. I am scared of religion cause of all the senseless murder it has caused throughout time.

116

[quote]SteelyD wrote:
Taxes are a valid issue/concern. They affect how/where we spend our remaining dollars. They can cripple personal and business budgets. The US was founded largely on the premise of fighting unfair taxes and tyranny by King George. Lowering taxes is absolutely a valid platform to run on.[/quote]

Personally, I don’t see the appeal in supporting someone who kicks me in the nuts, just because they also bought me a cake.

Lowering taxes is fine, I support it, but then… who is going to pay for these wars? Already they cost more than any liberal social programs ever could. Where is the fiscal conservative responsibility there?

Yes, War is constitutionally mandated, but in the face of extremely negligent spending and poor accounting that this war has induced, the argument for lowering taxes out of a sense of fiscal responsibility or financial diligence loses its luster.

“Support our troops! so long as someone else foots the bill!” :-/

117

The ‘war spending’ (technically, not a war because Congress didn’t declare ‘war’) has funded by a Democrat controlled congress.

You’ll need to do more research on your claim about it costing more than social programs. We’re still paying taxes for programs started during ‘The New Deal’ and certainly paying out the wazoo, with absolutely no return on ‘The Great Society’ legislation.

The largest portions of the budget?

  • Public Education (worse than ever)
  • Social Security (a legal Ponzi scheme)
  • Medicare/Medicaid - going broke in a hurry
  • Welfare service (More people on Welfare than ever before)

The war spending, in 7 years doesn’t come close to the combined spending of Social programs over the past 50, 30, or even 10 years.

I don’t disagree that this administration has spent our money (yes, that’s OUR money) like a drunken sailor. I’ve never claimed to be a fan of the current administration solely on the fact that it HAS out spent.

It’s pretty bad when Liberals complain about the spending. But, keep in mind, those complaints are always “That money could have been spent elsewhere”. So, they’re not against spending trillions if it’s spent pandering to welfare recipients, only if it’s spent on defending the country.

118

[quote]Rocky101 wrote:
rainjack wrote:
Rocky101 wrote:
Boy you God Warriors stick together. When I think of book banning I think of a short german guy with a funny mustache. He envoked God too while he burned and gassed children.

I love watching these God-hating little fucks spew their fear like a dog pissing down his own leg.

Have you nothing left but to compare the right-wing to Hitler? You sorry loser assed motherfuckers have been saying the same tired shit for 20 of the last 28 years.

Guess what? We are no closer to Hitler now than we were when your mother was considering having an abortion with you.

Please. Either try an new mantra or shut the fuck up. This is just too much. I have to wonder what it is you are so fucking scared of. A woman? Religion? Faith? Your own fucking shadow?

Settle down I don’t hate God I hate people who try to push their morality down my throat. And don’t bring my mother into it, internet warrior, I am catholic we don’t believe in abortion either. I am scared of religion cause of all the senseless murder it has caused throughout time.
[/quote]

First, this nation was founded on the moral principles of Christianity as described in the Bible. To say you don’t accept this morality is to put yourself in direct opposition to this country’s beginnings. Choose to accept them or not, but so long as you are in this country you agree to oblige them.

Second, when, as a politician, has Palin tried to push her morality down anyones throat?

119

[quote]MrRezister wrote:
Which leaves me feeling woefully under-represented. I can’t say for sure, but I think that a lot of the Republican base feels the same way, and thus is looking for someone, ANYONE to hang their hopes on. As such, the celebration over Palin may be a bit premature.[/quote]

Yes. We do the best with what we’ve got. My contention is, we keep settling for what we get. It seems as if the majority of the voting populace just kind of assumes these candidates come out of the ether, and that all the time between elections is meaningless.

120

[quote]tedro wrote:
First, this nation was founded on the moral principles of Christianity as described in the Bible. To say you don’t accept this morality is to put yourself in direct opposition to this country’s beginnings. Choose to accept them or not, but so long as you are in this country you agree to oblige them.
[/quote]

This nation was founded by Secular Humanists and Deists, who understood that Christian values are completely, utterly, 100% meaningless and irrelevant in the application of lawmaking. Accept it or not, but as long as you live in this country you agree to oblige that.