Unwashed Village
General Discussion => Unwashed Village => Topic started by: Chucara on September 17, 2008, 06:06:12 PM
-
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?
-
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.
-
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/ (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/ (http://swineline.org/2008/08/28/pork-in-the-presidential-race/)
-
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.
-
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.
-
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. :P
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.
-
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. ;D
-
I'm gonna have to talk to your mom about that post.
-
I'm gonna have to talk to your mom about that post.
:guitarist:
-
I'm gonna have to talk to your mom about excessive guitar hero.
-
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.
-
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?
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
hahahah
-
LOLOLOLOL Her email got hacked. Nice job using your zip code as a password reminder. Don't let her near NORAD.
On behalf of all lame password users everywhere
-
LOLOLOLOL Her email got hacked. Nice job using your zip code as a password reminder. Don't let her near NORAD.
Zipcode? I heard a rumor that the password was "popcorn". I'm not even sure which is dumber.
-
ALL RUMORS ARE TRUE
hahahahahah
I've never been so happy to be hard right, I mean, honestly
-
Given how she has been handling the investigations in Alaska and that she's been using unofficial communications for official business.. meh.. makes me question her.
That and the fact that she's coming off more and more as an overzelous fundamentalist christian.
-
That and the fact that she's coming off more and more as an overzelous fundamentalist christian.
How? What has she done to enforce her beliefs on anyone? There's the one story about a librarian that is floating around but that's it. The supposed list of books that she wanted banned was found to be hoax. She killed a bill that would have taken benefits away from same sex couples in Alaska which isn't a "fundie" move at all and makes me seriously doubt the librarian about that one book.
All evidence I've seen points to her believing what she believes and not forcing those beliefs on anyone else in which case this is just about her being an outspoken christian. Of course that makes her an insane "fundie" to the left because she isn't part of the hive mind and that's getting more than a little ridiculous.
-
Actually the source seems to come from her leading the evangelical takeover of her town and pushing for that in Alaska as a whole.
As for the whole 'beleave in science' deal.. since science is what has and will continue to push this country forward into the future, it's very damned important for America as a whole that we have people who 'beleave in science' as you put it... else we end up like many of the Arab nations out there: Way behind the curve and having to rush to catch up techonology wise.
-
Actually the source seems to come from her leading the evangelical takeover of her town and pushing for that in Alaska as a whole.
As for the whole 'beleave in science' deal.. since science is what has and will continue to push this country forward into the future, it's very damned important for America as a whole that we have people who 'beleave in science' as you put it... else we end up like many of the Arab nations out there: Way behind the curve and having to rush to catch up techonology wise.
There's a huge difference between believing in technology and it's development vs believing in the big bang. That's what we're talking about here.
-
Which is why they are called Theories to say 'hey, they are unproven'. However, the danger is that if you don't support the developement and research into such theories you limit the oportunities for advancements that can be found because of it. For example, since you aptly brought up the big bang: The LHC on the border of Switzerland and France was established with the main purpose of exploring the whole 'big bang' theory. This large collider, however, has the potential to greatly revolutionise the field of molecular physics which in turn would expand into feilds such as materials engineering, mechanical engineering and a wide range of other fields that have practical applications.
In other words, the persuit of this 'theory' will, more then likely, lead to a greater understanding of the elements which will inturn allow us to make better tools/materials/objects that will help further human/sociatal growth.
*edits to add* That is the difference between religion and science.
Science takes then unproven and tries to prove it as truth(and discards it if it's disproven).
Religion takes the unproven and states that it's truth(and keeps it even if it's disproven*eg the whole 'earth is 7000 years old and man walked with dinosaurs deal*).
-
Religion takes the unproven and states that it's truth(and keeps it even if it's disproven*eg the whole 'earth is 7000 years old and man walked with dinosaurs deal*).
Actually, only fundamentalist Christians believe that. Most other Christian faiths accept the fact that the Earth has existed for several million years, but that mankind has only existed for 6,000.
But good point, nonetheless.
-
Which is why they are called Theories to say 'hey, they are unproven'. However, the danger is that if you don't support the developement and research into such theories you limit the oportunities for advancements that can be found because of it. For example, since you aptly brought up the big bang: The LHC on the border of Switzerland and France was established with the main purpose of exploring the whole 'big bang' theory. This large collider, however, has the potential to greatly revolutionise the field of molecular physics which in turn would expand into feilds such as materials engineering, mechanical engineering and a wide range of other fields that have practical applications.
In other words, the persuit of this 'theory' will, more then likely, lead to a greater understanding of the elements which will inturn allow us to make better tools/materials/objects that will help further human/sociatal growth.
*edits to add* That is the difference between religion and science.
Science takes then unproven and tries to prove it as truth(and discards it if it's disproven).
Religion takes the unproven and states that it's truth(and keeps it even if it's disproven*eg the whole 'earth is 7000 years old and man walked with dinosaurs deal*).
But again you are straying off point since no one is arguing that scientists shouldn't research things based on their beliefs. In other words, if Palin had been president the LHC would still exist.
-
The point Im bringing up is that someone who doesnt 'beleave' in science, as you put it, will likely not put any effort into the persuits. The government plays a big role in the advancement of science and to have someone in charge who thinks that it's a bunc of balognie is to the detrament of the country as a whole.
-
Religion takes the unproven and states that it's truth(and keeps it even if it's disproven*eg the whole 'earth is 7000 years old and man walked with dinosaurs deal*).
Actually, only fundamentalist Christians believe that. Most other Christian faiths accept the fact that the Earth has existed for several million years, but that mankind has only existed for 6,000.
But good point, nonetheless.
Well that was just one example of something that has been widely disproven but is still strongly alive in the hardcore religious circles.
-
Religion takes the unproven and states that it's truth(and keeps it even if it's disproven*eg the whole 'earth is 7000 years old and man walked with dinosaurs deal*).
Actually, only fundamentalist Christians believe that. Most other Christian faiths accept the fact that the Earth has existed for several million years, but that mankind has only existed for 6,000.
But good point, nonetheless.
Well that was just one example of something that has been widely disproven but is still strongly alive in the hardcore religious circles.
I believe 10-15k years and science has shown me nothing but theories to disprove it. They can claim millions of years because of some reading they got but then they always thought the speed of light was constant until recently. In other words, scientists know jack-poo about the earth's history and are basing their beliefs on faith that they've got a theory right.
Also, Bush who is supposedly a "fundie" was in office when the LHC was made. So again this all comes down to alarmists trying to strike fear into voters.
-
The US had little to do(outside of a couple of projects) with the LHC. I used it as an example to show what is at risk if you stiffle science. What I worry about, however, are those projects with strong US backing that would be at risk if such a fundie got into office. Bush is 'religious' but he isnt an evangelical. He has tried to appease them but there's a vast difference between being an evangelical and simply being a relious person(what Bush is).
Also, thanks for proving my point that science doesnt hold onto things that can be disproven.
-
Also, thanks for proving my point that science doesnt hold onto things that can be disproven.
Which proves my point that there's no reason to take scientific theories as gospel. So why is it that anyone that doubts what science says about the age of the world is treated like they are by the people that believe it?
I know the LHC didn't have to be approved by Bush in any way. My point was that a supposed "fundie" was at the helm and the earth didn't stop rotating on its axis or even start to move backwards. Things continued on as they would have if anyone else was in the White House.
-
Back on subject
What's worse, not knowing what the "Bush Doctrine" is or THIS (http://www.politico.com/blogs/bensmith/0908/Biden_garbles_Depression_history.html?showall)?
So there goes that argument against her (unless of course one is willing to admit the same about Biden).
-
Ok, one thing first that makes me irk as a scientistish person:
A scientific theory isn't as some people seem to think the same as a "guess".
A hypothesis is an idea that has been created by research and observations.
A theory is a model that explains all current observations, and can possibly be used to predict future ones. Generally speaking, many have abandoned the word "Law" in favor of theory as one of the cornerstones of science is to allow conflicting evidence to disprove your theory. In this way - gravity is also a theory.
The following two pictures sum up my feelings are religion/faith as science quite well:
http://i203.photobucket.com/albums/aa74/harrowlawl/sciencevsreligion.jpg (http://i203.photobucket.com/albums/aa74/harrowlawl/sciencevsreligion.jpg)
http://img388.imageshack.us/img388/232/religionkv0.png (http://img388.imageshack.us/img388/232/religionkv0.png)
Like I said earlier, there is absolutely nothing wrong with having faith, but it's very hard to persuade others to believe something that you can't prove or even make plausible. Doing so requires a spiritual experience that man can give (except Chuck Norris).
I know Palin's strong belief is am advantage in America, but I wouldn't even consider anyone with as outspoken beliefs as her. Faith is a person matter, and should not be mixed with government. While comparing to much of the Arab world is taking it to extremes, it is an example of a society where religion takes precedence over logic and true justice.
-
Bottom line. If you profess to be Christian or a Christian, supporting any man made government in any way other than simply recognizing the ruling authority, goes against what you pray for in "The Lord's Prayer."
And that's a fact.
-
Bottom line. If you profess to be Christian or a Christian, supporting any man made government in any way other than simply recognizing the ruling authority, goes against what you pray for in "The Lord's Prayer."
And that's a fact.
You're an idiot.
-
My personal belief is that faith is like a preference. You like to have faith like you like mint chocolate chip ice cream.
If you're someone like me, you go through periods where you think "I'm sick of mint chocolate chip ice cream," but in a few years, you think "damn, I really need some mint chocolate chip ice cream right about now."
I don't need science to prove that mint chocolate chip ice cream is delicious. Sure you can analyze the structure of the ice cream, the function of your taste buds paired with the neurological and psychological triggers that make me feel better when eating it, but none of that is going to keep me from liking mint chocolate chip ice cream.
To me, faith is the space that exists between what you know and what you believe. And that's good enough for me.
Damn I need some ice cream.
-
Bottom line. If you profess to be Christian or a Christian, supporting any man made government in any way other than simply recognizing the ruling authority, goes against what you pray for in "The Lord's Prayer."
And that's a fact.
You're an idiot.
I didn't mean to shatter your reality. :blank:
-
I know Palin's strong belief is am advantage in America, but I wouldn't even consider anyone with as outspoken beliefs as her. Faith is a person matter, and should not be mixed with government. While comparing to much of the Arab world is taking it to extremes, it is an example of a society where religion takes precedence over logic and true justice.
But once again I'm forced to ask, where's the evidence that she is mixing her faith with government?
Also, I understand the terminology of science. I just don't accept that that's how people are using those terms. People teach theories as truths and don't point out that they can and should be questioned. Then they get all bent out of shape when you actually do question them. This seems to be the prevalent attitude with many who discuss these issues. Look at Al Gore and his, "the debate is over" on Global Warming. No it's not you friggin crook hack politician! If it's science then it's ALWAYS up for debate according to the rules the scientists made about such things. Another example would be any show about nature or the earth. Every one of them talks about how this or that took place millions of years ago. They don't say, "And it's thought that this happened..." or "The evidence suggests that...". NO! They say, "Millions of years ago this took place" or "This dinosaur fed on these things". Those are assumptions and nothing more.
-
I know Palin's strong belief is am advantage in America, but I wouldn't even consider anyone with as outspoken beliefs as her. Faith is a person matter, and should not be mixed with government. While comparing to much of the Arab world is taking it to extremes, it is an example of a society where religion takes precedence over logic and true justice.
But once again I'm forced to ask, where's the evidence that she is mixing her faith with government?
Where's the evidence that she even has a stand on anything? Are we to assume that her policies are the same as McCain?
-
Also, I understand the terminology of science. I just don't accept that that's how people are using those terms. People teach theories as truths and don't point out that they can and should be questioned. Then they get all bent out of shape when you actually do question them. This seems to be the prevalent attitude with many who discuss these issues. Look at Al Gore and his, "the debate is over" on Global Warming. No it's not you friggin crook hack politician! If it's science then it's ALWAYS up for debate according to the rules the scientists made about such things. Another example would be any show about nature or the earth. Every one of them talks about how this or that took place millions of years ago. They don't say, "And it's thought that this happened..." or "The evidence suggests that...". NO! They say, "Millions of years ago this took place" or "This dinosaur fed on these things". Those are assumptions and nothing more.
Al Gore isn't a scientist. The "facts" he presents are not much better than the "facts" some of the more extreme creationists provide (grand canyon was made by the Great Flood, the shape of a banana disproves evolution).
But it's completely fair to say "millions of years ago" because no other plausible theory exists that explains the creation of the universe, carbon dating, etc. Otherwise we'd also have to say that "the ball fell to the ground because the evidence suggests that two masses attract eachother. After all, gravity is only a theory, and could potentially be disproven.
There are simply too many things that point to evolution and other things that certain religions seems to think conflict with their beliefs. I can't help but think that evolution has many parallels to when people started questioning whether the earth is really flat. Yet today, there aren't many people that have doubts about that.
Basically it boils down to:
This thousand-year old book says this is what happened. Oh, and the dinosaur fossils were placed by God for some illogical reason.
- or -
An overwhelming amount of verifiable evidence that strongly point towards the process of natural selection. Sure, the model may not be complete, and it may even be disproven in the future, but faced with no alternative that can be explained scientifically, this is what we have to work with so far.
Note that I don't think that evolution excludes faith in God. Why is it not possible that God had the foresight to also create natural selection? Again this boils down to how literally you want to take the Bible - and I frankly can't see how it is possible to do so without knowing that *ahem* certain places could use a revision (references to slavery, the "pillars of the earth", "corners of the earth" etc.).
-
Why is it not possible that God had the foresight to also create natural selection?
Given the direction that "creative evolution" and now "intelligent design" have gone, I'm willing to believe that something similar to what you explain is next.
-
Why is it not possible that God had the foresight to also create natural selection?
Who is saying He didn't? Natural selection isn't the same thing that we're arguing about as there's no particular time line that's needed for it to exist. I'm talking specifically about the scientific belief that the earth and creation started millions of years ago.
-
Who is saying He didn't? Natural selection isn't the same thing that we're arguing about as there's no particular time line that's needed for it to exist. I'm talking specifically about the scientific belief that the earth and creation started millions of years ago.
Well, in believing that the Earth was created thousands of years ago instead of millions, you're discarding carbon dating and indirectly evolution. No sane scientist believes that we could evolve from amoebas to mammals in a few thousand years. That basically pulls the carpet away under evolution.
-
Head of Skate: An Alaskan hockey mom becomes Vice President in the wackiest family comedy of the year! (http://www.collegehumor.com/video:1831461)
Video at link.
-
"CBS News Exclusive:" Katie Couric speaks with GOP vice-presidential candidate Sarah Palin about the nation's economic concerns and the McCain campaign's ties to lobbyists. (http://www.cbsnews.com/video/watch/?id=4476649n)
I hear words... but I don't understand what she's talking about.
I feel like I'm listening to Paul Winfield in Darmok from Star Trek the Next Generation.
(http://images4.wikia.nocookie.net/memoryalpha/en/images/2/20/Dathon.jpg)
McCain! His ways Maverick!
Obama! He waits for winds!
America! Their support for McCain unfurled!
-
I feel like I'm listening to Paul Winfield in Darmok from Star Trek the Next Generation.
(http://images4.wikia.nocookie.net/memoryalpha/en/images/2/20/Dathon.jpg)
McCain! His ways Maverick!
Obama! He waits for winds!
America! Their support for McCain unfurled!
[/quote]
LOL I can't believe you made a Star Trek reference, let alone on an episode that was so kickass.
-
LOL I can't believe you made a Star Trek reference, let alone on an episode that was so kickass.
Oh yes, one of my favorites. In the Pale Moonlight (http://memory-alpha.org/en/wiki/In_the_Pale_Moonlight_%28episode%29) was one of my favorite DS9 episodes.
-
Well, let me ask you something Brug:
Would you put an Athiest in charge of the Vatican?
It's a simular situation with the presidency since the government does play such a significant role in American science.
-
Well, let me ask you something Brug:
Would you put an Athiest in charge of the Vatican?
It's a simular situation with the presidency since the government does play such a significant role in American science.
I'm pretty sure there have already been atheists in charge of the Vatican at various times. :P
Anyway, are you actually arguing now that christians or other members of other faiths shouldn't be allowed to hold public office?
-
Well, let me ask you something Brug:
Would you put an Athiest in charge of the Vatican?
It's a simular situation with the presidency since the government does play such a significant role in American science.
I'm pretty sure there have already been atheists in charge of the Vatican at various times. :P
Anyway, are you actually arguing now that christians or other members of other faiths shouldn't be allowed to hold public office?
I'll argue that. :D
-
Nope but that people who are hardline enough to make decisions based off of their faith shouldnt be allowed to run the country.
I can point to plenty of examples but the most notable ones are Iran and Saudi Arabia as to why it's a bad idea to have those who want to make religion into law running a country is a bad idea.
-
Nope but that people who are hardline enough to make decisions based off of their faith shouldnt be allowed to run the country.
I can point to plenty of examples but the most notable ones are Iran and Saudi Arabia as to why it's a bad idea to have those who want to make religion into law running a country is a bad idea.
And yet once again you fail to show any examples of when she has tried to make her religion into law.
-
The 'main' one is her stated stance that she'd support a ban on providing homosexual benefits such barring public employers from providing health insurance to the partaners of homosexual employees. EG She supports government sponsored bigotry.
-
Brugdor. 2 minutes on your response.
-
The 'main' one is her stated stance that she'd support a ban on providing homosexual benefits such barring public employers from providing health insurance to the partaners of homosexual employees. EG She supports government sponsored bigotry.
Wow...no. Exactly the opposite actually. She killed a bill in Alaska that would have taken those benefits away from same sex partners.
Here I'll even let Media Matters own themselves on this http://mediamatters.org/items/200809170004
In fact, while Palin did veto a bill that would have prevented state officials from granting spousal benefits to same-sex couples, she stated that she did so because the Alaska attorney general had advised her that the bill was unconstitutional, not because she supported spousal benefits for same-sex couples.
Here they are complaining that she went against what she believes because the ban on those benefits is unconstitutional. Thus she put the law above her religion on that subject.
-
Read it again. She didnt veto it because she was against it(she was quite for it actually if you look at her stance in Alaska).
Lets continue on with the quote that you started:
she stated that she did so because the Alaska attorney general had advised her that the bill was unconstitutional, not because she supported spousal benefits for same-sex couples.
In other words, she vetoed it so that there would be in keeping with the record of a supream court(state or otherwise) and to prevent the challanging the bill and making it much harder to pass such legislation in the future.
To go on even further with the very link you provided:
Moreover, Palin indicated in a written questionnaire and in December 2006 press releases that she disagreed with the Alaska Supreme Court's ruling that same-sex couples are entitled to the same spousal benefits given to other state employees; in another questionnaire, Palin replied, "Yes," when asked whether she would support "a Constitutional amendment to overturn [the] Alaska Supreme Court decision mandating public employers to provide benefits equivalent to marriage to same-sex couples."
See, your link isnt helping your case out very much since it shows a very distinctive picture of the woman stating her stance in opposition of gay rights.
Now to continue on with Mediamatter articles.. lets look at some of the articles cited in the one you posted:
http://mediamatters.org/items/200808290025
"The Department of Law advised me that this bill, HB4001, is unconstitutional given the recent Court order of December 19th, mandating same-sex benefits," said Governor Sarah Palin. "With that in mind, signing this bill would be in direct violation of my oath of office."
-
Jack Cafferty Tells Us How He Really Feels About Sarah Palin (http://ca.youtube.com/watch?v=L8__aXxXPVc)
On a side note... does anyone else have a hard time figuring out what she's saying?
Now... like most people, I like to think I have a fair degree of intelligence and I can understand the what people are saying. So I believe I have the ability to understand people.
I. Don't. Understand. Her.
I hear words but no meanings. I see sentences fused together. I see someone just talking in the hope of appearing smart.
Is it just me or does anyone else have a hard time understanding what she's talking about?
God! Even Bush sounds moronic but I can still understand what he's saying even if I believe it to be another lie.
Am I the only one that can't understand what she's saying 90% of the time?
"I feel like I'm taking Crazy Pills!"
-
Read it again. She didnt veto it because she was against it(she was quite for it actually if you look at her stance in Alaska).
And again, she voted it down because it would have violated constitutional law. FYI, being against same sex marriage and in favor of a constitutional ban on such marriages doesn't make you a christian. If it was only right-wing evangelicals in office that were against it then the Democrats should have had no problem passing a pro-gay marriage amendment in Congress. They didn't however because many of them are also against gay marriage.
For Palin's beliefs to ever come into play on this subject she would have to be President, Congress would have to pass a bill banning gay marriage (not ever going to happen because they'll never have the votes) that Palin felt was constitutional (when already proven it HAS to be or she'll veto it), and Palin would have to sign it into law. THEN it would be immediately challenged and would have to get through the Supreme Court (also won't happen).
So this is much ado about nothing.
-
Actually as VP she'd hold the 'tiebreaker' vote so it's more then just 'oh, it's only relavent if she becomes president'(which, with McCain at his age, isnt outside the realm of possability).
-
Jack Cafferty Tells Us How He Really Feels About Sarah Palin (http://ca.youtube.com/watch?v=L8__aXxXPVc)
On a side note... does anyone else have a hard time figuring out what she's saying?
Now... like most people, I like to think I have a fair degree of intelligence and I can understand the what people are saying. So I believe I have the ability to understand people.
I. Don't. Understand. Her.
I hear words but no meanings. I see sentences fused together. I see someone just talking in the hope of appearing smart.
Is it just me or does anyone else have a hard time understanding what she's talking about?
God! Even Bush sounds moronic but I can still understand what he's saying even if I believe it to be another lie.
Am I the only one that can't understand what she's saying 90% of the time?
"I feel like I'm taking Crazy Pills!"
I understand. She's just speaking politician which is answering a question with a non-answer. She's just not as polished at it as people who have been in DC most of their lives.
I'll remind you that Biden has a long history of foot-in-mouth disease including the big history gaffe he made recently that I linked earlier in this thread.
I also don't understand how someone can think Palin isn't qualified but Obama is. They have roughly the same amount of experience. As I've said before, I think their "inexperience" is in their favor as far as I'm concerned. But hey, that's just the Dwarf talkin. I'll return you to your two parties that are currently trying to set all taxpayers back roughly 750 billion dollars.
Enjoy.
-
Actually as VP she'd hold the 'tiebreaker' vote so it's more then just 'oh, it's only relavent if she becomes president'(which, with McCain at his age, isnt outside the realm of possability).
Now we're really reaching here. :P
-
Considering that both can happen, it's not reaching at all.
Reaching would be me saying that it matters because someday her children might grow up and gain power in the country off of her teachings... that or aliens will show up and make us all slaves.
-
that or aliens will show up and make us all slaves.
Well now you're back to making sense.
*nods in approval*
And while all of this is fun, I'm too worn out from WAR to keep responding.
G'night!
*Dwarf hugs*
-
Ack, stuntie hug!
Nights shortie
-
What a moron.
Sarah Palin Can't Name a Newspaper She Reads (http://ca.youtube.com/watch?v=xRkWebP2Q0Y&eurl=http://lj-toys.com/?journalid=8384972&moduleid=18&preview=&auth_token=sessionless:1222833600:embedcontentiurl=http://i1.ytimg.com/vi/xRkWebP2Q0Y/default.jpg)
Jesus Palin... can't you even remember the Weekly World News? Highlights is a magazine. Why didn't you mention that one?