That Palin chick.. Isn't she worse than Bush?

[Chucara]

Now, I'm sceptical of both the Internets and the local media. (and what I see of the Daily Show and Fox news over here), so I was hoping some ya'lls could enlighten me as to which of these are true:

- She's never heard of the Bush Doctrine
- This actually happened during her pregnancy? (http://img364.imageshack.us/img364/4628/sarahpalinla4.png)
- She's against abortion
- She doesn't believe in evolution
- She support preemptive strikes in/against foreign countries (without permission of the country)
- She's against gun control
- She's a woman

Are all of the above true? If this is the case: how can she and the mummy be ahead in the polls?

[Brugdor]

Now, I'm sceptical of both the Internets and the local media. (and what I see of the Daily Show and Fox news over here), so I was hoping some ya'lls could enlighten me as to which of these are true:

- She's never heard of the Bush Doctrine
- This actually happened during her pregnancy? (http://img364.imageshack.us/img364/4628/sarahpalinla4.png)
- She's against abortion
- She doesn't believe in evolution
- She support preemptive strikes in/against foreign countries (without permission of the country)
- She's against gun control
- She's a woman

Are all of the above true? If this is the case: how can she and the mummy be ahead in the polls?

Because this is America and more than one viewpoint is allowed in our country?

Since when did faith in science become mandatory to run for office? Since when did supporting the genocide of the unborn?

And btw, I'm not buying into the hoopla over the "Bush Doctrine" thing. It's a media buzzword and that's all it is. If he had asked her a direct question about Bush's foreign policy she'd have been fine.

Btw, I wouldn't vote for her even if I was a Republican just based on the earmarks thing which she and McCain are still evading being direct about.

[Thanatos]

The Bush Doctrine thing is just ridiculous.  Some interviewer asked her how she felt about the Bush Doctrine, and she said 'In what respect?', which I think is a pretty reasonable response to such a vague and retarded question, considering that the white house has never laid forth a specific 'Bush Doctrine' and the 'Bush Doctrine' that the media and analysts have compiled as a general plot of the Bush Administration's policies has about eight million aspects and is different depending on who you talk to.  He might as well have asked her, "What are your feelings on weather in general?"  or "How do you feel about international relations throughout mankind's recorded history?"

Brug, what earmarks thing are you talking about? 

http://senateconservatives.com/2008/09/06/mccain-palin-vs-obama-biden-on-earmarks/

Most of the article I linked above is pretty useless information that's clearly tainted by propaganda; even the bit I'm about to quote has some clear bullshit in it (vis a vis comparing the amount of dinero that Obama requested with the amount Palin secured), but still, the numbers are pretty clear.

Sarah Palin’s record on earmarks is far better than that of Obama or Biden. In his first three years, Obama requested nearly $1 billion in earmarks, which is more than 34 times the number of earmarks Palin secured for Wasilla. This includes the million dollar earmark he secured for his wife’s employer, shortly after they nearly tripled her salary. Obama also sought $3.4 million in earmarks for clients of Biden’s lobbyist son.

Both in Illinois and in Washington, Obama has used his position to cosponsor legislation that rained millions of dollars upon Tony Rezko and his other major donors in the slum-development business, to obtain state grants for his private law clients, and to earmark funds for government contractors who donated money to his campaigns.

Basically, Obama showed no restraint up until this year. Biden never has. Biden requested $119 million in earmarks last year alone, according to Citizens Against Government Waste.

McCain’s record on earmarks is far better than that of Obama or Biden. The Club for Growth 2008 RePork Card gave Senator Obama a 33% score and Senator Biden just 17%. Conversely, Senator McCain scored 100%.

    * The Citizens Against Government Waste 2007 Congressional ratings show that McCain has been a true reformer while Obama and Biden have talked a lot but voted with Washington special interests.

    * Obama scored only a 10% rating and Biden had a 0% rating in fighting waste in 2007. Obama had 53 earmarks worth nearly $100 million including $1.6 million for an aquarium. Biden had 70 earmarks worth nearly $120 million including $240,000 for an opera house.

    * John McCain had a 100% last year, and he has never requested nor received a single earmark, and has pledged to veto any spending bill that contains any earmarks.

For flat numbers just go here: http://swineline.org/2008/08/28/pork-in-the-presidential-race/

[Brugdor]

How much she got for her town or state is irrelevant. When you are running on a platform that you are a reformer you shouldn't been seen putting your hand in the cookie jar. It just smells of more, "Do as I say not as I do" politics and we've had more than our share of that nonsense already.

And btw, for any who might get offended by my posts here today <---- major lack of sleep, short fuse, irritable, grumpy, etc and not meaning to seem that way towards anyone in particular.  So my apologies in advance if I manage to make someone angry.

[Chucara]

Because this is America and more than one viewpoint is allowed in our country?

What I meant by that statement was that she just seems an awful lot like the same kind of politician that Bush seems to be. Strong Christian (not that that's necessarily a bad thing, I just think the office should be kept completely seperate from any belief), conservative, supports preemptive strikes(another war to support doesn't exactly seem like a good thing for the economy right now)

Since when did faith in science become mandatory to run for office? Since when did supporting the genocide of the unborn?

I know we'll disagree, and we could probably start a new forum for all the places, where we do so, but here goes:

First of all, abortion isn't genocide - it's murder if it's anything. But completely being against abortion is archaic. I'm completely against abortion as a means of birth control, but there are cases where abortion is in order. (Killing a fetus that would otherwise be stillborn, forcing a woman to bear the child of a rape, etc.). But that's a long topic that is unrelated.

Abortion is one thing, basic science is something completely different. To simply discard decades of science because it doesn't fit the bill isn't the mark of a good VP. Her views seems extremely oldfashioned and conservative. For a country that supposedly isn't based on a single religion, Christianity seems to take up a lot of the campaign. That seems very odd to me, living in a country where less than 2% of the population go to church on a regular basis (more than 1-2 times a year). The only openly Christian party in Denmark didn't even gather enough votes to meet the cutoff (2%) at the last election.

And btw, I'm not buying into the hoopla over the "Bush Doctrine" thing. It's a media buzzword and that's all it is. If he had asked her a direct question about Bush's foreign policy she'd have been fine.

Maybe I'm biased because even I've heard mention of the Bush doctrine.. I'd hope a VP would follow the media a little more. Again, I asked the question because I wasn't sure if she'd never heard mention of it (which would be scary), or because she didn't understand the question. (Which doesn't matter at all). I guess many people over here are just a little scared and amazed that people in the US seem to be voting for another republican that seems bound to repeat the same mistakes as the current administration. (War, environment, economy)

Btw, I wouldn't vote for her even if I was a Republican just based on the earmarks thing which she and McCain are still evading being direct about.

I've never heard about the Earmarks thing.

[Brugdor]

Because this is America and more than one viewpoint is allowed in our country?

What I meant by that statement was that she just seems an awful lot like the same kind of politician that Bush seems to be. Strong Christian (not that that's necessarily a bad thing, I just think the office should be kept completely seperate from any belief), conservative, supports preemptive strikes(another war to support doesn't exactly seem like a good thing for the economy right now)

Since when did faith in science become mandatory to run for office? Since when did supporting the genocide of the unborn?

I know we'll disagree, and we could probably start a new forum for all the places, where we do so, but here goes:

First of all, abortion isn't genocide - it's murder if it's anything. But completely being against abortion is archaic. I'm completely against abortion as a means of birth control, but there are cases where abortion is in order. (Killing a fetus that would otherwise be stillborn, forcing a woman to bear the child of a rape, etc.). But that's a long topic that is unrelated.

Abortion is one thing, basic science is something completely different. To simply discard decades of science because it doesn't fit the bill isn't the mark of a good VP. Her views seems extremely oldfashioned and conservative. For a country that supposedly isn't based on a single religion, Christianity seems to take up a lot of the campaign. That seems very odd to me, living in a country where less than 2% of the population go to church on a regular basis (more than 1-2 times a year). The only openly Christian party in Denmark didn't even gather enough votes to meet the cutoff (2%) at the last election.

And btw, I'm not buying into the hoopla over the "Bush Doctrine" thing. It's a media buzzword and that's all it is. If he had asked her a direct question about Bush's foreign policy she'd have been fine.

Maybe I'm biased because even I've heard mention of the Bush doctrine.. I'd hope a VP would follow the media a little more. Again, I asked the question because I wasn't sure if she'd never heard mention of it (which would be scary), or because she didn't understand the question. (Which doesn't matter at all). I guess many people over here are just a little scared and amazed that people in the US seem to be voting for another republican that seems bound to repeat the same mistakes as the current administration. (War, environment, economy)

Btw, I wouldn't vote for her even if I was a Republican just based on the earmarks thing which she and McCain are still evading being direct about.

I've never heard about the Earmarks thing.

1. If you look at it that simply then Reagan was a lot like Bush is. The thing is, there are a ton of other things that influence a politician outside his or her faith. Their faith should be their core of morality which will guide them on the various stances they have as politicians but those stances can be very different from the christian politician standing right next to them. For instance, unlike the vast majority of the christian right, I'm against the death penalty and I'm against it because of my faith.

2a. Call it what you will, abortion is the taking of a life. Even Biden thinks that though for some reason it's perfectly ok to snuff that life out in his mind. The vast majority of abortions are performed as birth control. Only a small percentage fall into the protect the life of the mother, rape, incest, etc category. I actually restrained myself from posting an article quoting a Canadian abortion doctor that was upset that Palin chose to have her baby. He was upset because he thought that it might cause other mothers with Down syndrome children to have their babies too and that that might lessen the number of abortion$$$ his clinic performed. My pastor's brother has Down Syndrome and has lived a full life well into his 40s. A life that well may have been ended had today's greedy abortion-happy doctors been around.

2b. I haven't been to church in a long time either. That doesn't mean I'm not a christian. It just means I've been lazy about looking for a new church that's closer to me. Besides which, Denmark has a whole other group of "fundies" to worry about these days. 

3. I don't think Bush has been bad for the environment. In fact, a few years ago he declared a huge area of the ocean around Hawaii as protected. At least I think it was Hawaii. I'd have to double check that. The greenies get all upset when people don't pass the measures they want but their policies have a history of screwing up the environment just as much as anyone else's. Bush has also given more money to fight AIDS in Africa than any other president. In other words, while he's not a great president he's also not the godzillian monster most of the world has propped him up to be.

[Nighthavok]

The Vice-Presidential Breakdown:

As Republicans go, they believe they are willfully blessed by God to do his will through the platform of the United States government.  This so-called "will" is to exalt hard-working families that exercise biblical prescribed values and to commit their life to their country.  If you don't do this, you're "UnAmerican."  I'm not even kidding.  If you're a Jew, Muslim, Buddhist, etc, good luck when Jesus makes his round trip and explodes the world by dividing by zero.

I could punch holes the size of impact craters in this flawed logic, but this is only the platform for we which we shall jump head first and explain the enigma that is Sarah Palin.

-------------------------------------

Sarah Palin, for the lack of a better word, is delusional. 

- She's never heard of the Bush Doctrine

You are correct that this, along with "executive experience" is a media buzzword.  Also, the quotation marks indicate rampant sarcasm from my end.  The Bush Doctrine, as a whole is this.  "To enslave those who do not follow; to destroy those who do not agree."  And then do it under the guise of "Hey, God told me to" or any number of divinities mixed with a verb to form a slightly evasive and incoherent sentence.

- This actually happened during her pregnancy? (http://img364.imageshack.us/img364/4628/sarahpalinla4.png)

This doesn't necessarily mean she makes bad decisions, but honestly, if the above tree is true, then dear god, I want to hit that.

- She's against abortion

Despite the fact it goes against biblical doctrine, which is a cornerstone of the Republican party, the truth remains that abortion is indeed murder no matter what the circumstances.  It should not be left up to the mother to decide if a child should live or die based on the circumstances of its conception.  There are all kinds of avenues to help a disabled or non-disabled child to reap the benefits of enjoying life.  There's adoption.  There's taking responsibility.  Deal with it.

- She doesn't believe in evolution

Once again, apart of biblical doctrine.  And I won't touch it with a ten foot pole.  Simply because, I myself believe in Intelligent Design and wouldn't want to offend or discredit others opinions solely for the purpose of trolling.

- She support preemptive strikes in/against foreign countries (without permission of the country)

Because America is right and everyone else is wrong.  The rest of the world has to get that memo.  Also, we're putting cover sheets on all our TPS reports from now on.

- She's against gun control

Because she believes that guns are a part of protecting your family.  Apparently, it's not the responsibility of the local police force, military or homeland security.  Also, I hear it's pretty badass to go rabbit hunting with a gas powered semi automatic rifle that could slice Redwoods in half.

- She's a woman

The Republicans are basically saying "Hey look.  Tits."

In conclusion, Palin's nomination is basically trying to appeal to Hilary supporters that feel shafted.  It's a complete circus.

IMHO, McCain's gonna get his sh*t pushed in.  It's all over.

[BlueCross]

I'm gonna have to talk to  your mom about that post.

[Nighthavok]

I'm gonna have to talk to  your mom about that post.

 :guitarist:

[BlueCross]

I'm gonna have to talk to your mom about excessive guitar hero.

[Solwyn]

I'm gonna have to talk to your mom about excessive guitar hero.

When the side-tangents of the debate forum slowly eclipse the initial meaning of the first post, we can always count on our faithful Blocker of Cocks (BC) to crash in and derail the ever-loving crap out of the thread.

[BlueCross]

I'm gonna have to talk to your mom about excessive guitar hero.

When the side-tangents of the debate forum slowly eclipse the initial meaning of the first post, we can always count on our faithful Blocker of Cocks (BC) to crash in and derail the ever-loving crap out of the thread.

Why so serious?

[Doombot]

Are all of the above true? If this is the case: how can she and the mummy be ahead in the polls?

Here's the scary thing. I think she's bad. I think she's downright scary. The thought of that nut being president is one of the most scary thoughts I can imagine.

But... she doesn't have to be worse than Bush to really hurt this country. Imagine if you got into debt for $10,000. Then next year you get into debt for $2500.00.

1/4 as many mistakes as the previous year but you're worse off than during the 'bad year'. Because nothing was improved and you added to the trouble.

It's the same with her. Just make a few mistakes and we're still worse off than we were under Bush.

 We're already had a politician who's either uninformed, arrogant or both. I'd like to not see the same for the next four years.

[Chucara]

Ok, so it seems that the media here aren't all that biased as I thought. I was kinda hoping they were, but at least I can see that Obama appears to be ahead in the polls again.

The Christianity thing isn't really a problem for me, but it's a problem when you use it as an argument. "Because God says so." isn't a valid argument in a discussion. Granted, I don't know how often than happens over there, but I suspect it's a lot more than it happens here.

The fact that she believes in intelligent design would cause me never to vote for her. I have no problem with religious people, unless they 1) try to get me to convert or 2) fail to realize that they can't explain their faith. This is my major issue with intelligent design: it's not science, and it never will be. It's faith: you can't explain it, and you shouldn't have to.

And Doom makes a good point. It seems it'll be near impossible for her to screw up to the same degree that Bush did, but if she isn't part of the solution, she becomes part of the problem.

[Nighthavok]

One might say that Creationism is a faith-based theory and that Evolution is a scientifically-base theory.  Therefore, if it is in the vein of Science that one searches for the truth, one can undoubtedly come to the conclusion that the law by which we define our existence, the way we measure, reason, count, hypothesize; these things are not purely by happenstance or random chance.  Of course, believing in a Creator means accepting responsibility for one's actions.

And as for Sarah Palin...


LOLOLOLOL Her email got hacked.  Nice job using your zip code as a password reminder.  Don't let her near NORAD.