NationStates Jolt Archive

Has McCain’s pick of Sarah Palin affected how you will vote?

If none of the options indicated accurately reflect your position, choose the last option ("Yes, now I am undecided/other (please explain)") and explain your position.

Serious responses only, please.

Its not like we dont have enough posts about this religious crazy bitch right?

Its not like we dont have enough posts about this religious crazy bitch riht?

Or the election in general.....

I suppose the pick further sealed the deal, but I wasn't going to vote for McCain anyways.

Its not like we dont have enough posts about this religious crazy bitch riht?

I apologize if you feel like there are already too many threads about Sarah Palin, or the election in general, but I want to know if and how it has affected people's votes.

Also, what is it about her that makes you think she is crazy?

Also, what is it about her that makes you think she is crazy?

Uhhh everything?

No, Im serious, I havent heard her utter a single truthful or sane thought.

The pick of Sarah Palin just proves you can't polish a turd (the McCain ticket). Indeed, to stretch the analogy further, the problems the pick has caused with all the personal stuff uncovered goes to show that those engaging in the polishing often end up covered in more shit.

*quickly stops to avoid slipping into that speech at the end of Team America*

i was never going to vote for mccain but his choice makes me much more nervous about the chance that he might end up as president with this neophyte one heart beat away from the presidency.

You should really have left a real international option for those of us who don't want to constantly click on polls to see results but can't vote in the US elections.

Now you're just going to get a lot of "I wasn't planning to vote anyways"

(although if I was able to vote in US elections, I'd be going with Obama anyways... that crazy bitch and the old man she's running with are frightening)

Well, I'm now going to be voting for Obama and not a third party because I absolutely cannot risk letting a creationist get even close to having a chance at nominating Supreme Court justices.

You could tell from the pick of I Can't Believe It's Not Hillary that the Republicans were desperately hoping Obama would have chosen Clinton as VP. In their efforts to both please their Fundie Masters and supposedly pander to Disgruntled Clintocrats they've ended up exposing the religiously rotten roots of the current GOP.

I decided that will not vote on a candidate who plans on winning the next election with unsound ideas, empty promises, and a tidal wave of idealism which they hope will get them all the way to the White House. That being said... I am looking at third party candidates very thoroughly.

where's the "i'm not american" poll option?

where's the "i'm not american" poll option?

On the internet we're all Americans!

Its not like we dont have enough posts about this religious crazy bitch right?

Yeah, separation of church and state and all that. I, for one, feel that if creationism were taught in public schools, there would be a good deal of upset parents

Well, I'm now going to be voting for Obama and not a third party because I absolutely cannot risk letting a creationist get even close to having a chance at nominating Supreme Court justices.

Same here. I was seriously tempted to vote for the Green Party candidate just to give the Greens some more chances at being able to do something serious on a national level but that's no longer an option now.

It would probably be a good idea for me to vote for Obama ANYWAY since Colorado needs all the Obama votes it can get.

where's the "i'm not american" poll option?

Added.

One thing that you can say about her is that her appeal to middle America is substantial. She has just the right measures of naivity and cunning hyocrisy to get plenty of voters who were itching for a reason to vote against Obama coming out in their droves.
She's certainly dangerous - armed to the teeth in fact.
However,the US economy and America's low standing on the world stage because of neo-con stupidity may just get Obama across the line.

Yeah, separation of church and state and all that. I, for one, feel that if creationism were taught in public schools, there would be a good deal of upset parents

You guys are forgetting an important little detail: she's a hot religious crazy bitch, her sympathy for Alaskan secessionists could even be considered kinky. It looks like Ann Coulter has been solidly defeated in the "lecherous conservative lunatic" department, despite her long blond hair and strong hands.

Well, I'm now going to be voting for Obama and not a third party because I absolutely cannot risk letting a creationist get even close to having a chance at nominating Supreme Court justices.
http://news.google.com/news/url?sa=t&ct=us/0-0&fp=48c35856799967e8&ei=F3vDSKmnNo_6lQTQwfXYAw&url=http%3A//ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5hq-4ZBiiUcq8IsbGQ0SHW04WS4kgD930OK2O0&cid=1242766302&usg=AFQjCNFEP1lvfngnnTdQrj8GnAjYVW6F-w
Funny how this shit NEVER ENDS WITH the fucking republicans.

You guys are forgetting an important little detail: she's a hot religious crazy bitch, her sympathy for Alaskan secessionists could even be considered kinky.The good old days.
It looks like Ann Coulter has been solidly defeated in the "lecherous conservative lunatic" department, despite her long blond hair and strong hands.
...and prominent Adam's Apple.

I like her well enough, but she hasn't affected my decision. Did I say this already? With the dozen topics on Gov. Palin, I think I've lost track.

I like her well enough, but she hasn't affected my decision. Did I say this already? With the dozen topics on Gov. Palin, I think I've lost track.That would be the scattershot/confusion/chemo approach to voter submission.

can't vote,because:

a.i'm not american.

b.i'm thirteen.

can't vote,because:

a.i'm not american.

b.i'm thirteen.
Get yourself hooked up with Diebold, and it'll work out fine. They have no problem with doing the wrong and illegal thing.
ES&S and Siemens AG, while you're at it. In like Flynn.

I was almost squarely set on Obama, but I still held out a shred of hope that the old McCain was still there and the crazy was just an act. His VP choice has totally proven that he's batsh*t insane now.

Gah! More insanity from Palin (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iwyC2PW3vc8).

Gah! More insanity from Palin (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iwyC2PW3vc8).
is that what you intended to link to?

There was a great movie made about 50 years ago, starring Spencer Tracy as an old, tired and cynical politician standing for one more election - which, I seem to remember, he lost. The movie was called "The Last Hurrah!"
I feel sorry for politicians. Some of my friends have this drive, which I think is more of a compulsive behaviour pattern, to get elected. I'm convinced that the reason they are multiple candidates is because they want to be loved and admired on a grand scale.
I can see that clearly in Governor Palin. I think that she is very insecure.

There was a great movie made about 50 years ago, starring Spencer Tracy as an old, tired and cynical politician standing for one more election - which, I seem to remember, he lost. The movie was called "The Last Hurrah!"
I feel sorry for politicians. Some of my friends have this drive, which I think is more of a compulsive behaviour pattern, to get elected. I'm convinced that the reason they are multiple candidates is because they want to be loved and admired on a grand scale.
I can see that clearly in Governor Palin. I think that she is very insecure.
She's like Kane?

Has McCain’s pick of Sarah Palin affected how you will vote?

It's affected not how I vote, but it has affected my resolve see McCain defeated.

Pre-Palin I was pro-Obama, slightly negative on McCain, and utterly negative on Clinton. The choice of the Christofscist crazy lady running mate is, within a limited context, understabdable. But in the broader context, it's a worse - it's a blunder.

If none of the options indicated accurately reflect your position, choose the last option ("Yes, now I am undecided/other (please explain)") and explain your position.

Serious responses only, please.

Question for McCain: when 3/4 of US voters think that the country's headed in the wrong direction under the pretend Christian fascist, why did you pick the for real Christian Fascist?

Gah! More insanity from Palin (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iwyC2PW3vc8).

Okay, I know that's a "roll" of some sort, but I laughed my balls off. Sometimes when something truly goofy and repetitive hits at exactly the right moment in the right mood, I can laugh for many minutes. I needed that -- thank you.

McCain's pick for VP has not affected my voting decision at all. I have always been dead-set against McCain, both individually based on his record over the past several years, and as a Republican, as I believe the Republican party has been utterly corrupted by religious extremists and corporatists and must be knocked out of the highest levels of power, at least until they take back control of their own brains. There was never even the remotest chance of me voting for a Republican in this election.

On the other hand, Obama's pick for VP has affected my decision slightly in that I approve of his choice of Biden and this makes me feel more confident about voting for him. I was going to vote against the Republicans anyway, but now I feel even better about voting for Obama/Biden.

What really affected my vote the most, though, was the Democratic Party picking Obama as their candidate. If it had been Hillary, I probably would have abstained altogether, because I see Hillary as Lady McCain, and I really did not think I could bring myself to cast a vote for her, even to defeat the Republicans. But Obama/Biden is a ticket I can vote for without reservations.

Uhhh everything?

Your answer cleverly saves you from having to provide real reasons. Well done, my friend.

No, Im serious, I havent heard her utter a single

Careful. You're about to make a huge, foolish exaggeration.

truthful

Here it comes.
You don't think that Sarah Palin has stated any facts? You don't think she's made any good points? You think that everything to come out of her mouth so far has been a lie?

or sane thought.

She seems pretty sane to me, especially when you compare her to the foaming-at-the-mouth crazies who have been trying to smear her in the media. Next to the elitists who promote bizarre rumors barely worthy of tabloid covers as news, Sarah Palin is the picture of perfect health.
Maybe she doesn't inspire you, or maybe you disagree with her, but if you hate Sarah Palin, it is so about you.

Okay, I know that's a "roll" of some sort, but I laughed my balls off. Sometimes when something truly goofy and repetitive hits at exactly the right moment in the right mood, I can laugh for many minutes. I needed that -- thank you.

:D I'm glad you liked it! I laughed uncontrollably the first time I saw it. I guess one would call it a croc roll?

Here it comes.
You don't think that Sarah Palin has stated any facts? You don't think she's made any good points? You think that everything to come out of her mouth so far has been a lie?

While I have no doubt that she's stated a few facts and been truthful on some matters . . . no I haven't heard her make any good points.

i was never going to vote for mccain but his choice makes me much more nervous about the chance that he might end up as president with this neophyte one heart beat away from the presidency.But, but...if McCain kicks the bucket, a woman would be president.

But, but...if McCain kicks the bucket, a woman would be president.

Oh please, if the American public let Commander in Chief wither away while Prison Break continues to be a hit, what makes you think they'd look forward to a real life female President?

But, but...if McCain kicks the bucket, a woman would be president.
yeah.

and since she has no national opinions of her own (outside of religious ones and ones that are good for alaska) she would be an even better puppet than george bush is.

mccain better hire a food taster if he wins.

:D I'm glad you liked it! I laughed uncontrollably the first time I saw it. I guess one would call it a croc roll?

I'd call it not funny.

Oh please, if the American public let Commander in Chief wither away while Prison Break continues to be a hit, what makes you think they'd look forward to a real life female President?

The American public as a whole? Perhaps not.
Plenty of women, on the other hand, wanted Hillary to win because Hillary is a woman.

yeah.

and since she has no national opinions of her own (outside of religious ones and ones that are good for alaska) she would be an even better puppet than george bush is.

mccain better hire a food taster if he wins.Heh.

yeah.

and since she has no national opinions of her own (outside of religious ones and ones that are good for alaska) she would be an even better puppet than george bush is.

Oh, come on. You have a vagina. You're not supposed to be making political decisions based on the opinions of the candidates. Everyone knows you're just supposed to vote for the woman.

The American public as a whole? Perhaps not.
Plenty of women, on the other hand, wanted Hillary to win because Hillary is a woman.

They had a shot back in 1984 with Mondale/Ferraro. Where were they then?

Oh, come on. You have a vagina. You're not supposed to be making political decisions based on the opinions of the candidates. Everyone knows you're just supposed to vote for the woman.
only if my husband tells me to

Has McCain’s pick of Sarah Palin affected how you will vote?

If none of the options indicated accurately reflect your position, choose the last option ("Yes, now I am undecided/other (please explain)") and explain your position.

Serious responses only, please.

My sig should answer all your questions.

Uhhh everything?

No, Im serious, I havent heard her utter a single truthful or sane thought.

Then as Judge Judy says, "Put on your listening ears." Oh, and open up your closed mind, :(

:D I'm glad you liked it! I laughed uncontrollably the first time I saw it. I guess one would call it a croc roll?

I only watched about 1/2 of it as it was giving me a headache.

While I have no doubt that she's stated a few facts and been truthful on some matters . . . no I haven't heard her make any good points.

That's an answer I can respect, as "good points" are debatable.
However, my post was in response to someone who said he hadn't heard anything true from Sarah Palin- which means either he likes to throw words like "anything," "nothing," and "always" around as if they're meaningless, or it means he hasn't been listening.

I'd call it not funny.

This.

Well, I'm now going to be voting for Obama and not a third party because I absolutely cannot risk letting a creationist get even close to having a chance at nominating Supreme Court justices.

Sigh.

That you don't have to worry about. The "creationists" between 2004 and 2006 had control over the Presidency, the Congress, and the Supreme Court, but they didn't even try to enforce anything, beyond keeping one notable vegetable alive, that could be remotely construed as creationist. They did, however, roll through the abomination of a bankruptcy reform bill, and keep the war going, and the wiretapping, and . . . well, do I really need to continue?

The point is simple: the creationism is nothing more than the marketing ploy. The product itself is poison designed to appeal to narrow neo-conservative and business conservative interests, but it's sold by a folksy guy in a cowboy hat or a moose-hunting ex-beauty queen. They're never actually going to do anything about rolling back Roe v. Wade or buffing up the strength of the 10th Amendment, because that would interfere with the federal government's purpose of supporting an imperial presidency and big business. But it's something they need to say in order to get a sufficiently large coalition together.

I'm curious to know, offhand, just how often Sarah Palin actually goes out and hunts. Is she really an outdoorswoman, or is she a frontierswoman in the same way that George W. is a farmer (on that ranch. . .that he bought in 1999. . .and he never seemed to do anything with except clear scrub. . .and never grew a damned thing on. . .and is now selling in 2008).

This.

And rickrolling is hilarious.:rolleyes:

And rickrolling is hilarious.:rolleyes:

Actually, I kinda like that song.
>.>
<.<

My sig should answer all your questions.

Absolutely


Sarah Palin 2012
The old fart.

Couldn't be clearer. :p

Actually, I kinda like that song.
>.>
<.<

My friend does do. We all have our strange tastes.

Well, it's an interesting issue. Now both campaigns have a "new, breakthrough" in the US history. If Obama gets elected- first non-white prez, and if McCain gets elected, first woman VP. I don't know, but if McCain snuffs it, first woman prez? I mean, that would be a great thing for this country, but don't get me wrong, there are better examples of woman presidents that I would rather see...

And rickrolling is hilarious.:rolleyes:
I find that amusing because of my sense of humor, whereas this just didn't hit it.

I know, I know, it makes no sense. That's life for you.

They had a shot back in 1984 with Mondale/Ferraro. Where were they then?

Being browbeaten by Reagan, the archetypical husband.

I find that amusing because of my sense of humor, whereas this just didn't hit it.

I know, I know, it makes no sense. That's life for you.

I was the exact opposite. Rickrolling I've never found funny, this video was so random and nonsensical, I laughed so hard I nearly peed.

The point is simple: the creationism is nothing more than the marketing ploy.
Palin advocated teaching creationism years before anyone ever even suspected she'd be relevant on a national level. I don't recall Bush doing the same.

Oh, and open up your closed mind, :(

Says the Neocon to the liberal progressive.

Palin advocated teaching creationism years before anyone ever even suspected she'd be relevant on a national level. I don't recall Bush doing the same.

Erm, Palin advocated teaching creationism at exactly the moment when cultural conservativism began to be the defining feature of conservatism as a whole: 94-96 is really when you begin to see the end for pro-choice Rockefeller conservatism outside of a few dead-enders in the Northeast. After that, you were either a rock-ribbed heartlander, or you were a fuddy-duddy elitist (aka Mr. Moneybags) within the party. The origins started a bit sooner in the early 90's, but 94 is really the moment when what were previously considered religious nuts started taking over the party apparatus.

Says the Neocon to the liberal progressive.

And that means that the liberal progressive maybe isn't as liberal as he thought.

It's pretty bad when a neocon is more open-minded then someone who claims to be a liberal.

And that means that the liberal progressive maybe isn't as liberal as he thought.

It's pretty bad when a neocon is more open-minded then someone who claims to be a liberal.

Let me explain this for you slowly jr.

Celt hasnt once shown to be more open minded then me. Disliking Palin because she is a religious right nut who champions anti-choice movements and creationism all while on her knees blowing big oil does not make me "close minded".

Telling someone "open up your closed mind" doesnt mean that person has a close mind. Rejecting someone's victorian and theocratic views precisely because they are victorian and theocratic doesnt make one close minded. Just labeling someone as something without any evidence doesnt make that label stick.

My "says the neocon to the liberal progressive" comment was in short a "pot calling the kettle black" comment. Given Celt's prior posts and views on the subject, my point is he is in no position to tell anyone to "open their mind", least of all me.

We call what Celt did "coping out".

Let me explain this for you slowly jr.

And once again, my age factors in.:rolleyes:

Celt hasnt once shown to be more open minded then me. Disliking Palin because she is a religious right nut who champions anti-choice movements and creationism all while on her knees blowing big oil does not make me "close minded".

I don't mind that you dislike Palin. I don't either. But isn't "No, Im serious, I havent heard her utter a single truthful or sane thought." A little on the ridiculous and close minded side?

Telling someone "open up your closed mind" doesnt mean that person has a close mind. Rejecting someone's victorian and theocratic views precisely because they are victorian and theocratic doesnt make one close minded. Just labeling someone as something without any evidence doesnt make that label stick.

It actually does.

lacking tolerance or flexibility or breadth of view

My "says the neocon to the liberal progressive" comment was in short a "pot calling the kettle black" comment. Given Celt's prior posts and views on the subject, my point is he is in no position to tell anyone to "open their mind", least of all me.

So, you're saying Neocons and liberal progressives are the same thing now? Celt might not be the most open-minded person on here, but you know your own, and Celt definitely saw that you were being close-minded.

I don't mind that you dislike Palin. I don't either. But isn't "No, Im serious, I havent heard her utter a single truthful or sane thought." A little on the ridiculous and close minded side?

Truthfull was an exaggeration. She fudges numbers a lot. So she doesnt lie all the time. Just doesnt tell the truth often.

Sane I meant.

It actually does.

Wait, let me get this straight. Disagreeing with someones views makes one close minded now? No. No it doesnt. Try again.

If I said she was not entitled to have those views, THAT would be a bit on the close minded side. She can have them. By all means, if she wants to bend over for oil companys, fire people to settle personal vendettes, push creationism in schools, and be anti-choice, that is fine. I just wont agree with any of it. And that does not make one "close minded". I tolerate her views and her right to them. I just think they are dangerous and draconian views.


So, you're saying Neocons and liberal progressives are the same thing now?

Jesus tap dancing Christ on a stick where did you get that from?

Celt might not be the most open-minded person on here, but you know your own, and Celt definitely saw that you were being close-minded.

Nah, he didnt. He just said I was because I think he Conservative Messiah is a batshit theocrat.

Again, disagreement does not make one close minded. Pretending it does is just foolish.

Wait, let me get this straight. Disagreeing with someones views makes one close minded now? No. No it doesnt. Try again.


I never said it does.

If I said she was not entitled to have those views, THAT would be a bit on the close minded side. She can have them. By all means, if she wants to bend over for oil companys, fire people to settle personal vendettes, push creationism in schools, and be anti-choice, that is fine. I just wont agree with any of it. And that does not make one "close minded". I tolerate her views and her right to them. I just think they are dangerous and draconian views.

Then we've had a misunderstanding.

Jesus tap dancing Christ on a stick where did you get that from?

The phrase "Pot calling the kettle black" is an idiom, used to accuse another speaker of hypocrisy, in that the speaker disparages the subject for a fault or negative behavior that could equally be applied to him or her,
Therefore, you were essentially saying that both parties have that same problem.

Then we've had a misunderstanding.


Apperantly we have.

Carry on then.

Erm, Palin advocated teaching creationism at exactly the moment when cultural conservativism began to be the defining feature of conservatism as a whole: 94-96 is really when you begin to see the end for pro-choice Rockefeller conservatism outside of a few dead-enders in the Northeast. After that, you were either a rock-ribbed heartlander, or you were a fuddy-duddy elitist (aka Mr. Moneybags) within the party. The origins started a bit sooner in the early 90's, but 94 is really the moment when what were previously considered religious nuts started taking over the party apparatus.

She advocated teaching creationism as recently as 2006.

Sigh.

That you don't have to worry about. The "creationists" between 2004 and 2006 had control over the Presidency, the Congress, and the Supreme Court, but they didn't even try to enforce anything, beyond keeping one notable vegetable alive, that could be remotely construed as creationist. They did, however, roll through the abomination of a bankruptcy reform bill, and keep the war going, and the wiretapping, and . . . well, do I really need to continue?

The point is simple: the creationism is nothing more than the marketing ploy. The product itself is poison designed to appeal to narrow neo-conservative and business conservative interests, but it's sold by a folksy guy in a cowboy hat or a moose-hunting ex-beauty queen. They're never actually going to do anything about rolling back Roe v. Wade or buffing up the strength of the 10th Amendment, because that would interfere with the federal government's purpose of supporting an imperial presidency and big business. But it's something they need to say in order to get a sufficiently large coalition together.

*sigh*

This "the radical right doesn't really mean it" schtick is tiring. Palin made conservative wedge issues the warp and woof of her campaigns, dating back to her Wasilla origins. This is a woman who made opposing same-sex marriage one of her top priorities as Governor.

Regardless, the idea that Roe v. Wade is safe and creationism is just a marketing ploy flies in the face of the long legal history of the anti-abortion and creationism movements. Legislation taking away reproductive rights gets passed all the time -- despite (and, in fact, in a deliberate challenge to) Roe and its progeny. Legislation trying to inject creationism into our schools also gets passed all the time -- despite (and, in fact, in a deliberate challenge to) a long line of federal precedent allowing it as violating the First Amendment.

Your back-handed assurances aside, there are powerful movements to reduce our freedoms and violate our civil rights. And the record of politicians like John McCain and, especially, Sarah Palin make clear that they are paying more than just lip-service to these causes. Don't kid yourself.

EDIT: I would note that in Gonzales v. Carhart (http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=000&invol=05-380), 550 U.S. ___ (2007), not only did a majority of the Supreme Court uphold restrictions on abortion and weaken Roe, but also some Justices openly called for the repeal of Roe.

Says the Neocon to the liberal progressive.

I've taken the test and I'm a Libertarian. Here, have a cookie but don't ask what's in it. :eek:

It's pretty bad when a neocon is more open-minded then someone who claims to be a liberal.

Thank you, I almost resemble that.

I've taken the test and I'm a Libertarian. Here, have a cookie but don't ask what's in it. :eek:

I call bullshit, as "libertarian" policies and ideology fly directly in the face of the intrusive and draconian administration a "Palin 2010" would represent.


Thatd be like me saying Im a communist but having "Adam Smith 2012" as my sig.

*sigh*

This "the radical right doesn't really mean it" schtick is tiring. Palin made conservative wedge issues the warp and woof of her campaigns, dating back to her Wasilla origins. This is a woman who made opposing same-sex marriage one of her top priorities as Governor.

Regardless, the idea that Roe v. Wade is safe and creationism is just a marketing ploy flies in the face of the long legal history of the anti-abortion and creationism movements. Legislation taking away reproductive rights gets passed all the time -- despite (and, in fact, in a deliberate challenge to) Roe and its progeny. Legislation trying to inject creationism into our schools also gets passed all the time -- despite (and, in fact, in a deliberate challenge to) a long line of federal precedent allowing it as violating the First Amendment.

Your back-handed assurances aside, there are powerful movements to reduce our freedoms and violate our civil rights. And the record of politicians like John McCain and, especially, Sarah Palin make clear that they are paying more than just lip-service to these causes. Don't kid yourself.

EDIT: I would note that in Gonzales v. Carhart (http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=000&invol=05-380), 550 U.S. ___ (2007), not only did a majority of the Supreme Court uphold restrictions on abortion and weaken Roe, but also some Justices openly called for the repeal of Roe.
It's the new Pollyannaism. They look at the big pile of crap, and they can't pretend it doesn't exist, so they just shrug it off with a, "Y'know, so come on, world, cheer up, it may never bloody happen!"*




*http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Absolutely_Fabulous#Unknown_episode
Episode 3.4

It's the new Pollyannaism. They look at the big pile of crap, and they can't pretend it doesn't exist, so they just shrug it off with a, "Y'know, so come on, world, cheer up, it may never bloody happen!"*




*http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Absolutely_Fabulous#Unknown_episode
Episode 3.4

I wouldn't be so unfair. It's basically blind optimism, really, along with a general sense of "It hasn't happened so it can't happen" that seems to apply to just about anything, from getting into car accidents or going into debt, to a nation switching from a republican democracy to a fascist dictatorship, etc etc.

It's foolish, but not surprising, and it comes from a general good-hearted feeling, I'd say.

Yeah, any Christian in office is a theocrat.
People aren't even trying to hide their intolerance anymore.

Not at all.


This christian however...

I wouldn't be so unfair. It's basically blind optimism, really, along with a general sense of "It hasn't happened so it can't happen" that seems to apply to just about anything, from getting into car accidents or going into debt, to a nation switching from a republican democracy to a fascist dictatorship, etc etc.
You're saying the exact same thing as I did, just trying to sound nicer about it. "Nice" = "insincere" where I come from. I prefer to speak honestly.

It's foolish, but not surprising, and it comes from a general good-hearted feeling, I'd say.
Screw their good-hearted feeling. Their good-hearted feeling is marching my country closer to fascism every day. I'm not interested in whether they're doing it maliciously or if they're just in denial about the damage they are doing, and preferring to look only at their rosy-hopeful fantasies.

You're saying the exact same thing as I did, just trying to sound nicer about it. "Nice" = "insincere" where I come from. I prefer to speak honestly.


Screw their good-hearted feeling. Their good-hearted feeling is marching my country closer to fascism every day. I'm not interested in whether they're doing it maliciously or if they're just in denial about the damage they are doing, and preferring to look only at their rosy-hopeful fantasies.

You make it difficult to be a nice realistic optimist, you know. ;)

But, but...if McCain kicks the bucket, a woman would be president.

Well we can't have that can we, even another reason not to vote for the Republican party

I kid please don't say anything *cowers*

I was the exact opposite. Rickrolling I've never found funny, this video was so random and nonsensical, I laughed so hard I nearly peed.

As did I. Somehow the beats and the video combine to trigger a huge silly mine in my head. If I could explain it, I would.

he picked a woman who is anti-women's rights. this is supposed to prove something? we always knew the political right was loonietoons, if the past seven years hasn't proven it, this HAS to.

i mean, ok, so he's proven he's still not entirely predictable, that may be good, but he's still more likely to more often to kiss the you know what of economic intrests then the guy who'se gonna win, not that they aren't both bought and paid for.

you have to look at who'se less likely to throw everyone who refuses to lie to themselves into some kind of concentration camps, and for that, just look at mccaine's track record and shudder.

and then there's the question of which one's likely to murder the fewer civilians. which one's less likely to impose arbitrary and quite likely universally self destructive values on the entire planet, domestically and internationally both.

Not at all.


This christian however...
especially since all the major candidates are christians so its silly to suggest that singling ONE out as religiously risky cant be an attack on all christians.

You make it difficult to be a nice realistic optimist, you know. ;)
Don't blame me for that. What makes it hard is that there's no such thing as a "realistic optimist." :p

EDIT: I would note that in Gonzales v. Carhart (http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=000&invol=05-380), 550 U.S. ___ (2007), not only did a majority of the Supreme Court uphold restrictions on abortion and weaken Roe, but also some Justices openly called for the repeal of Roe.

I tried to figure out how many justices with the needed viewpoint would have to be appointed to overturn Roe. I came up with as few as one, but I'm not sure if I'm right there. I know you could do it with three. Fuck, with three you could also overturn pretty much any decision that bars the teaching of creationism. Hooray for Scalia and Thomas.

She advocated teaching creationism as recently as 2006.

Let's try for a little honesty - you make it sound like she wanted creationism, and *only* creationism, in the classroom.

Palin, Oct. 25, 2006: Teach both. You know, don't be afraid of information. Healthy debate is so important and it's so valuable in our schools. I am a proponent of teaching both. And you know, I say this too as the daughter of a science teacher. Growing up with being so privileged and blessed to be given a lot of information on, on both sides of the subject – creationism and evolution. It's been a healthy foundation for me. But don't be afraid of information and let kids debate both sides.

A couple of days later, Palin amended that statement in an interview with the Anchorage Daily News, saying:

Palin, Oct. 2006: I don't think there should be a prohibition against debate if it comes up in class. It doesn't have to be part of the curriculum.

Don't blame me for that. What makes it hard is that there's no such thing as a "realistic optimist." :p

Hey, I exist! Don't deny my existence! :(

where's the "i'm not american" poll option?Over with the felons and juveniles in not-eligible-land. =D

Let's try for a little honesty - you make it sound like she wanted creationism, and *only* creationism, in the classroom.

Palin, Oct. 25, 2006: Teach both. You know, don't be afraid of information. Healthy debate is so important and it's so valuable in our schools. I am a proponent of teaching both. And you know, I say this too as the daughter of a science teacher. Growing up with being so privileged and blessed to be given a lot of information on, on both sides of the subject – creationism and evolution. It's been a healthy foundation for me. But don't be afraid of information and let kids debate both sides.

A couple of days later, Palin amended that statement in an interview with the Anchorage Daily News, saying:

Palin, Oct. 2006: I don't think there should be a prohibition against debate if it comes up in class. It doesn't have to be part of the curriculum."Teach the Controversy" is the most recent tactic by the Creationism-Only crowd. Note she doesn't hold the same opinion on healthy debate where sex-ed is concerned.

Hey, I exist! Don't deny my existence! :(
You only hope that it'll turn out you exist after all because you're an optimist. :p

Let's try for a little honesty - you make it sound like she wanted creationism, and *only* creationism, in the classroom.

Palin, Oct. 25, 2006: Teach both. You know, don't be afraid of information. Healthy debate is so important and it's so valuable in our schools. I am a proponent of teaching both. And you know, I say this too as the daughter of a science teacher. Growing up with being so privileged and blessed to be given a lot of information on, on both sides of the subject – creationism and evolution. It's been a healthy foundation for me. But don't be afraid of information and let kids debate both sides, and if they deny that, then they are lying again.

A couple of days later, Palin amended that statement in an interview with the Anchorage Daily News, saying:

Palin, Oct. 2006: I don't think there should be a prohibition against debate if it comes up in class. It doesn't have to be part of the curriculum.
There is no "healthy debate" when it comes to creationism in science classes. Creationism is religion, not science. It has no place in science class. Anyone who conflates the two is not informing kids but lying to them and spreading misinformation. Anyone who tries to give a gloss of "scienciness" to creationism is lying. Anyone who "advocates teaching both" is advocating teaching that religion is a substitute for science, and saying that they are doing otherwise is another lie. And any government official who advocates or permits the teaching of religion as science or a substitute for science in the science class of a public school is violating the separation of church and state.

Keep creationism in the comparative religion class where it frigging belongs, and keep the government out of the business of supporting and promoting religious instruction.

"Teach the Controversy" is the most recent tactic by the Creationism-Only crowd. Note she doesn't hold the same opinion on healthy debate where sex-ed is concerned.

Wiki:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Teach_the_Controversy

Aaaand the delightful t-shirted reply from Wearscience:

http://controversy.wearscience.com/

Wiki:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Teach_the_Controversy

What a pathetic ploy to try to keep the world paying attention to them. Losers.

What a pathetic ploy to try to keep the world paying attention to them. Losers.

Quite. The entire idea behind it is, first you try to teach creationism, then when that fails, you try to argue that at very least it should be taught that some people don't believe in evolution and want creationism taught.

But the very group that tries to justify it as "some people believe it!' are the people who believe it. They're not "teaching the controversy", they CREATED the controversy in attempt to then justify teaching its existence.

It's like if I went around claming my cat was god, then tried to get it taught that "well, some people believe Neo Art's cat is god"

Quite. The entire idea behind it is, first you try to teach creationism, then when that fails, you try to argue that at very least it should be taught that some people don't believe in evolution and want creationism taught.

But the very group that tries to justify it as "some people believe it!' are the people who believe it. They're not "teaching the controversy", they CREATED the controversy in attempt to then justify teaching its existence.

It's like if I went around claming my cat was god, then tried to get it taught that "well, some people believe Neo Art's cat is god"

That's why I own one of the t-shirts from the second link (and no, I own no stock or interest, I just think they're brilliant). I own the one showing the Devil burying fossils.

You only hope that it'll turn out you exist after all because you're an optimist. :p

...

Oh, you're good.

That's why I own one of the t-shirts from the second link (and no, I own no stock or interest, I just think they're brilliant). I own the one showing the Devil burying fossils.
I couldn't open the second link. :( Couldn't connect to the server. Do the shirts come in nice colors?

Wiki:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Teach_the_Controversy

Aaaand the delightful t-shirted reply from Wearscience:

http://controversy.wearscience.com/

Fascinating...

I just found my shirt:

http://wearscience.com/design/hugger/

I couldn't open the second link. :( Couldn't connect to the server. Do the shirts come in nice colors?

Keep trying the link, the server didn't anticipate the reaction of those wanting shirts. You'll eventually get in, and yes, they have many, many colors.

"Teach the Controversy" is the most recent tactic by the Creationism-Only crowd.

I think those of us who actually understand and value science should adopt this motto. We'll "teach the controversy" by using "creation science" as a good classroom example of what science is not. We should hold up those who engage in it, as well as those who push for "intelligent design" as examples of people who are failing to use the scientific method.

Students should understand very clearly that the controversy is between science and non-science.

Sarah Palin scares the crap outta me. Why people want to vote for her as president is beyond me.

Of course, she'll get a year as VP before she becomes president, but seriously!

I think those of us who actually understand and value science should adopt this motto. We'll "teach the controversy" by using "creation science" as a good classroom example of what science is not. We should hold up those who engage in it, as well as those who push for "intelligent design" as examples of people who are failing to use the scientific method.

Students should understand very clearly that the controversy is between science and non-science.Problem with that is it'd be up to the teacher/school/parents to interpret which one was controversial, and thus get around the teaching creationism ban. The way things currently are, they can't teach creationism at all.

Keep trying the link, the server didn't anticipate the reaction of those wanting shirts. You'll eventually get in, and yes, they have many, many colors.
Ah, there it is. Yeah, I need the devil burying the bones and the 3-breasted alien chick shirts. Definitely. :D

EDIT: I need both to highlight the difference between science and non-science, of course. Non-science just has you digging ditches and burying things, whereas science gets you laid by hot aliens. ;)

Problem with that is it'd be up to the teacher/school/parents to interpret which one was controversial, and thus get around the teaching creationism ban. The way things currently are, they can't teach creationism at all.

And, because they are afraid of offending someone with the truth, they also can't teach that creationism isn't science and explain why. This leaves students with very little understanding of the issue.

just an interesting sidenote to bring this back on topic...I volunteer at the RNC local office every thursday making phone surveys and last week I got someone who when I asked them the first question (Senators obama of mccain) said, well Mccain because he picked the woman. I don't even know her name"


so obviously it is working ;) at least based on my vast experience of one phone call :p

but if you think about it, for those uneducated politically ( the majority of people) it looks kinda bad...the candidate of change picks an...old white guy...yawn....the maverick picks a....young, hot, conservative, moose hunting, governor of aslaska...they think Wow he really is a maverick!


I personally, luv McCains choice (more ways than one maybe:)) for a lot of reasons, and I will continue to volunteer because of it.

That's why I own one of the t-shirts from the second link (and no, I own no stock or interest, I just think they're brilliant). I own the one showing the Devil burying fossils.

The Discworld shirt was hilarious though.

"Yay! A woman! Completely opposite me in values, but a woman! I must vote for the old guy!!!"

"Yay! A woman! Completely opposite me in values, but a woman! I must vote for the old guy!!!"

It reminds me of the old Simpsons episode where Lisa helped designed a new empowering doll to counter the traditional bimbotastic messages of a Barbie parody, only to have the new doll completely overlooked by a new edition of the Barbie parody... with a new hat.

"Yay! A woman! Completely opposite me in values, but a woman! I must vote for the old guy!!!"

Women don't vote with their big head, they vote with their little hood!

*sigh*

This "the radical right doesn't really mean it" schtick is tiring. Palin made conservative wedge issues the warp and woof of her campaigns, dating back to her Wasilla origins. This is a woman who made opposing same-sex marriage one of her top priorities as Governor.

Regardless, the idea that Roe v. Wade is safe and creationism is just a marketing ploy flies in the face of the long legal history of the anti-abortion and creationism movements. Legislation taking away reproductive rights gets passed all the time -- despite (and, in fact, in a deliberate challenge to) Roe and its progeny. Legislation trying to inject creationism into our schools also gets passed all the time -- despite (and, in fact, in a deliberate challenge to) a long line of federal precedent allowing it as violating the First Amendment.

Your back-handed assurances aside, there are powerful movements to reduce our freedoms and violate our civil rights. And the record of politicians like John McCain and, especially, Sarah Palin make clear that they are paying more than just lip-service to these causes. Don't kid yourself.

EDIT: I would note that in Gonzales v. Carhart (http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=000&invol=05-380), 550 U.S. ___ (2007), not only did a majority of the Supreme Court uphold restrictions on abortion and weaken Roe, but also some Justices openly called for the repeal of Roe.

Far be it for me to pick a fight with TCT, but I think you seriously misunderstand what I'm saying.

To whit, I fully agree that there are powerful movements within the Republican Party that want to roll back the protections afforded by Roe and/or establish creationism and/or undermine our freedoms and civil rights. And there is an entire wing of the party whose sole stated focus seems to be making such rollbacks possible.

But what I think at this point is historically impossible to refute, TCT, is that while this wing certainly exists, and while said stated aims exist, they have been perpetually on the brink of achieving their aims of rolling back these provisions for thirty years. They have been continually obstructed by liberal and moderate political factions as well as judicious placement of allies in the judiciary and legislative system. By contrast, the Republican party has also been attempting to enact, and put in place conservatives in the judiciary to protect, legislation that systematically guts worker protections and undermines the ability of workers to collectively organize and/or use other means to ensure a satisfactory livelihood. And these acts, from rollback on punitive damage awards and/or immunity from a variety of lawsuits, to loosening of federal regulations regarding workplace safety, to ensuring that at-will employment remains a secure means of contract, have not been resisted anywhere near as fiercely as the right to have an abortion, for instance, even though in day-to-day terms, the ability to secure a sufficient means of livelihood is every bit as important for a man or a woman as it is to ensure that women have right to control over their own bodily process.

The point of my post, however brief, was therefore twofold. First, I attempted to point out that every one of those people who is voting on the issue of abortion is also voting to make their own workplaces more difficult places to work in and their own livelihoods harder to make, something they probably neither know nor want. Secondly, while liberals take their attempts to protect one kind of rights with pride (as well they should), the other is frequently systematically ignored despite its significance. If I seem backhanded, it's far more because of the fact that the issue that I think should be addressed with equal consideration to the right to choose is consistently put on the back burner because the party and liberals are reflexively afraid of fighting against the systemic destruction of the economic underpinnings of the middle class for fear of being seen as damned dirty commies. I want that issue as much front and center as the issues that the party apparatus is geared towards fighting.

Make no mistake, TCT, I understand and appreciate civil rights. Hell, I'm a 1L in law school at present specifically to be a civil rights lawyer. When everyone got asked what they'd like to do most with their law school degree, between the "I'd like to be governor/representative/millionaire/etc." stuff, you'd have heard me saying "I'd like to be part of the Justice Department team that puts Dick Cheney in jail for the rest of his natural life, provided he's guilty beyond a reasonable doubt". (I care about the particulars of civil rights enough that I must note that in the case cited, Findlaw notes that the case is about curtailing rights in the 2nd and 3rd semester, which IIRC were stipulated as regulable in Roe v. Wade). But civil rights is not only what liberalism is about. It's also just as much about economic justice, and that's what's most being undercut by modern conservatism. I don't see it as too much a stretch to say that a lot of business conservatives see social conservatives as little more than useful idiots for their purposes, but have no real intention of helping the social con wing of the party enact its part of the agenda.

She advocated teaching creationism as recently as 2006.

People like to pretend the Creationists have given it up just because most of the country is still sane enough to counter them. But that business in Dover and Kansas wasn't so long ago (my father, a chemical engineer raised in Kansas, still gets so depressed over that).

Let's try for a little honesty - you make it sound like she wanted creationism, and *only* creationism, in the classroom.

Palin, Oct. 25, 2006: Teach both. You know, don't be afraid of information. Healthy debate is so important and it's so valuable in our schools. I am a proponent of teaching both. And you know, I say this too as the daughter of a science teacher. Growing up with being so privileged and blessed to be given a lot of information on, on both sides of the subject – creationism and evolution. It's been a healthy foundation for me. But don't be afraid of information and let kids debate both sides.

Science teacher =/= scientist. I've heard science teachers make plenty of outrages claims because they didn't know better.

Teach the Controversy is bullshit, pure and simple, because there is no controversy. Scientific evidence supports evolution. There is no scientific evidence that all creatures were created at the same time, and there is a mountain of evidence against it. If you can teach the "controversy" of evolution, then you can teach the controversy of whether George Washington was the first U.S. president, or whether WWII really happened.

That's why I own one of the t-shirts from the second link (and no, I own no stock or interest, I just think they're brilliant). I own the one showing the Devil burying fossils.

If I could somehow find that Sunday school pastor who told me to shut up when I asked about the dinosaurs, I would so mail him that shirt.

Problem with that is it'd be up to the teacher/school/parents to interpret which one was controversial, and thus get around the teaching creationism ban. The way things currently are, they can't teach creationism at all.

It's touchy enough as it is, anyway, trying to answer questions according to actual science without insulting anyone's "beliefs". I dread the day a student brings up any biblical source against evolution, because I don't know how I'm going to answer without potentially getting myself fired.

my question is, if creationism has no evidence, why not just teach it, teach the evidence creationists use, and then if you can refute it...seems like that would be a lot more useful for making young evolutionists...

Ah, there it is. Yeah, I need the devil burying the bones and the 3-breasted alien chick shirts. Definitely. :D

EDIT: I need both to highlight the difference between science and non-science, of course. Non-science just has you digging ditches and burying things, whereas science gets you laid by hot aliens. ;)

Amen! Wait....

my question is, if creationism has no evidence, why not just teach it

Because we don't teach things that have no evidence in science class

my question is, if creationism has no evidence, why not just teach it, teach the evidence creationists use, and then if you can refute it...seems like that would be a lot more useful for making young evolutionists...

Because there are only so many hours in each school day, and if we spent them teaching everything that had no evidence, we'd never get around to... y'know, actual teaching.

It's also not my job as a teacher to explain to children the ways in which their religions are wrong. It's my job to present sound facts and theories, in every subject.

Because there are only so many hours in each school day, and if we spent them teaching everything that had no evidence, we'd never get around to... y'know, actual teaching.

It's also not my job as a teacher to explain to children the ways in which their religions are wrong. It's my job to present sound facts and theories, in every subject.

Hey, who are you to second guess the mayor of the third largest town in Alaska? What the hell do YOU know about teaching?

Hey, who are you to second guess the mayor of the third largest town in Alaska? What the hell do YOU know about teaching?

Yes, she ruled 9000 people with a fluffy pink set of mittens!

It's also not my job as a teacher to explain to children the ways in which their religions are wrong. It's my job to present sound facts and theories, in every subject.

If you're a science teacher, I'd say it's your job to teach the scientific method and way of thinking just as much as it is your job to teach currently held theories and the supporting evidence. Without the former, science is just another authority figure, with little in the student's mind to differentiate it from the authority of a religious leader.

Science should never come down to "us vs. them." Students need to understand the method of science, rather than simply being asked to take - essentially on faith - scientists' word for it.

my question is, if creationism has no evidence, why not just teach it, teach the evidence creationists use, and then if you can refute it...seems like that would be a lot more useful for making young evolutionists...

Because if you refute it you would obviously be a dirty elitist libraul trying to oppress the Christian Religion.

Hey, who are you to second guess the mayor of the third largest town in Alaska? What the hell do YOU know about teaching?

Fourth largest. You're forgetting Fairbanks. ;) But you make an excellent point. I was never even class president, let alone mayor. :(

If you're a science teacher, I'd say it's your job to teach the scientific method and way of thinking just as much as it is your job to teach currently held theories and the supporting evidence. Without the former, science is just another authority figure, with little in the student's mind to differentiate it from the authority of a religious leader.

Science should never come down to "us vs. them." Students need to understand the method of science, rather than simply being asked to take - essentially on faith - scientists' word for it.

I absolutely agree, and I should have included that in my statement. I was trying to simplify the issue.

I am a firm believer that teaching kids how to think and make decisions is more important than teaching them facts (and when I say "how to think" I don't mean "how to think like me").

I'm not a science teacher, but as a K-6 teacher I'm responsible for teaching science from the book--the designated science teacher just does lab work with them. Emphasis on what science IS is very important to me, and I definitely stress to them, especially the little ones, that science is always growing and changing.

I'm not a science teacher, but as a K-6 teacher I'm responsible for teaching science from the book--the designated science teacher just does lab work with them. Emphasis on what science IS is very important to me, and I definitely stress to them, especially the little ones, that science is always growing and changing.

Except you don't teach God's truth, which makes you Satan's whore.

hey, check it out - mccain thinks palin is partially responsible for the deaths and injuries in the i-35 bridge collapse.
http://blip.tv/play/AcyvCwA

Except you don't teach God's truth, which makes you Satan's whore.

No no no, you've got it all wrong again. It makes me the liberal gay muslim tree-hugging hippies' whore. All those blood rituals and naked coven dances back in college made me Satan's whore.

hey, check it out - mccain thinks palin is partially responsible for the deaths and injuries in the i-35 bridge collapse.
http://blip.tv/play/AcyvCwA

Did you get the memo? She was against the bridge to nowhere so he doesn't mean her. ;)

I absolutely agree, and I should have included that in my statement. I was trying to simplify the issue.

I am a firm believer that teaching kids how to think and make decisions is more important than teaching them facts (and when I say "how to think" I don't mean "how to think like me").

I'm not a science teacher, but as a K-6 teacher I'm responsible for teaching science from the book--the designated science teacher just does lab work with them. Emphasis on what science IS is very important to me, and I definitely stress to them, especially the little ones, that science is always growing and changing.

=) No problem. It just seems like too many people are content with the "list of facts" method of science education, so I needed to put that out there.

And, if I haven't said it before, kudos to you on being a teacher. I know it can be a thankless job sometimes.

Fourth largest. You're forgetting Fairbanks. ;) But you make an excellent point. I was never even class president, let alone mayor. :(
Just get on your knees and thank your Lord that you haven't been a community organizer, because heaven knows that that's got a negative value of experience.

Sitting on your ass and doing nothing would be better...

Did you get the memo? She was against the bridge to nowhere so he doesn't mean her. ;)

Yes, once it was clear the funding was being stopped.

Just get on your knees and thank your Lord that you haven't been a community organizer, because heaven knows that that's got a negative value of experience.

Sitting on your ass and doing nothing would be better...

The current DNC meme (courtesy of the Daily Kos, IIRC) goes like this:

Jesus and Moses were community organizers. Pontius Pilate was a governor.

So 10 out of 10 for "zing", but now we're down to exchanging soundbites. *sigh*

=) No problem. It just seems like too many people are content with the "list of facts" method of science education, so I needed to put that out there.

And, if I haven't said it before, kudos to you on being a teacher. I know it can be a thankless job sometimes.

It has its amazing moments. And it has its moments like, oh, a few days ago, when a room full of 9-year-olds was arguing over whether the Raiders or 49ers were better. I finally had to end it by letting them know that they both sucked pretty hard, and had throughout their entire short lives, so it was pointless to argue about who sucked less.

sigh.

If McCain gets elected, we can only hope that he completes the term and stays competent throughout. Certainly Palin as veep would be a beautiful assassination preventative.

If McCain gets elected, we can only hope that he completes the term and stays competent throughout. Certainly Palin as veep would be a beautiful assassination preventative.

Well, that depends on how much of a born-again, rapture-seeking wing-nut you are. I have no doubt that, just like there's at least a dozen white-fascists in this country seriously plotting to assassinate Obama, should he win, there are also a handful of true believers who just know that Palin is the one to lead us all to the Third Temple, Armageddon and Jesus' reign on Earth, among other Revelation-based ideas.

Ain't diversity fun?

What a pathetic ploy to try to keep the world paying attention to them. Losers.

Now just a second Muravyets, the controversy should be taught. Not in a science class but more of in a social class to teach the kids why these things crop up the arguments from both sides etc. Since this for some reason is an important part of America and American politics students should be taught along with a few other controversies such as CETS, whaling issues etc.

Now just a second Muravyets, the controversy should be taught. Not in a science class but more of in a social class to teach the kids why these things crop up the arguments from both sides etc. Since this for some reason is an important part of America and American politics students should be taught along with a few other controversies such as CETS, whaling issues etc.

That's actually a pretty good idea. It'll give it the open forum it deserves to be shown why it's such complete idiocy.

That's actually a pretty good idea. It'll give it the open forum it deserves to be shown why it's such complete idiocy.

What a CETS or why creationism should be taught in science class? No I know you mean the science class, please don't respond I don't want to derail the thread with a debate on a CETS

What a CETS or why creationism should be taught in science class? No I know you mean the science class, please don't respond I don't want to derail the thread with a debate on a CETS

...what? I was talking about how the idea of teaching creationism in a science class is idiocy.

(What is CETS?)

...what? I was talking about how the idea of teaching creationism in a science class is idiocy.

(What is CETS?)

Yeah I knew that's what you meant, sorry it was a poor attempt at humour to combine my previous post with my main point maybe a bit esoteric and more suited to my warped mind. CETS stands for Carbon Emission Trading Scheme.

Yeah I knew that's what you meant, sorry it was a poor attempt at humour to combine my previous post with my main point maybe a bit esoteric and more suited to my warped mind. CETS stands for Carbon Emission Trading Scheme.Yeah, that belongs in policymaking and social studies classes.

Yeah, that belongs in policymaking and social studies classes.

Well that's what I am saying with the whole Teach the controversy issue, maybe it should be taught, in a social studies class.

Now just a second Muravyets, the controversy should be taught. Not in a science class but more of in a social class to teach the kids why these things crop up the arguments from both sides etc. Since this for some reason is an important part of America and American politics students should be taught along with a few other controversies such as CETS, whaling issues etc.
OK, then let's teach the controversy -- the truth about the controversy, which is that it is a manufactured ploy invented very recently by a single group of creationists with money and a letterhead who decided to try it as a kind of Plan D attempt to run around the multiple court decisions that have said creationism does not belong in science class, not to mention an attempt to grab a little more media time despte the fact that the majority of Americans have zero interest in anything they have to say.

In other words, "Kids, this is what bullshit looks like. Don't touch it, because the stink lingers."

Oh, and the follow-up lesson is that this Teach the Controversy(tm) bullshit is the precise reason why you should never take anyone's word for anything. Always investigate who is talking to you and why and what they stand to get out of it if you agree with them before even listening to what they have to say. It will save years of time, which is the most limited and precious resource each of us has.

Well, that depends on how much of a born-again, rapture-seeking wing-nut you are. I have no doubt that, just like there's at least a dozen white-fascists in this country seriously plotting to assassinate Obama, should he win, there are also a handful of true believers who just know that Palin is the one to lead us all to the Third Temple, Armageddon and Jesus' reign on Earth, among other Revelation-based ideas.

Ain't diversity fun?

And there's a fair deal of overlap between the two.

And there's a fair deal of overlap between the two.
Not a problem. Palin's white.

Not a problem. Palin's white.

Yep. Just pointing out that the rapture-seeking apocalyptic nuts are, by and large, the racist white fascists.

OK, then let's teach the controversy -- the truth about the controversy, which is that it is a manufactured ploy invented very recently by a single group of creationists with money and a letterhead who decided to try it as a kind of Plan D attempt to run around the multiple court decisions that have said creationism does not belong in science class, not to mention an attempt to grab a little more media time despte the fact that the majority of Americans have zero interest in anything they have to say.

In other words, "Kids, this is what bullshit looks like. Don't touch it, because the stink lingers."

Oh, and the follow-up lesson is that this Teach the Controversy(tm) bullshit is the precise reason why you should never take anyone's word for anything. Always investigate who is talking to you and why and what they stand to get out of it if you agree with them before even listening to what they have to say. It will save years of time, which is the most limited and precious resource each of us has.

It was only a half serious comment Muravyets but your post is basically what I was saying.

It was only a half serious comment Muravyets but your post is basically what I was saying.
Okey-dokey then. I think that, as the election approaches, my ability (or willingness, I'm not sure which) to deal with subtlety is waning.

Okey-dokey then. I think that, as the election approaches, my ability (or willingness, I'm not sure which) to deal with subtlety is waning.

Willingness I would say, you are just coming to realise you have 54 more days of bullshit to live through.

Willingness I would say, you are just coming to realise you have 54 more days of bullshit to live through.
Yeah, I think that's it.

Has the Anne Kilkenny "I have known Sarah since 1992" email (http://community.adn.com/adn/node/130537) been posted yet?

This part scared me:
She's not very tolerant of divergent opinions or open to outside ideas or compromise. As Mayor, she fought ideas that weren't generated by her or her staff. Ideas weren't evaluated on their merits, but on the basis of who proposed them.
That's very much like how Bush has been running the country...

Willingness I would say, you are just coming to realise you have 54 more days of bullshit to live through.
The Canadians just decided last weekend to have an election, about a year after we started about obsessing about our election full time. In a few weeks they will have their election over and done, and the new government installed. Our election still will not have happened, and the new government won't be installed for months after that. What is wrong with this picture?

In Australia, we have the Australian Electoral Commision which has total responsibility for running the election. All sides regard it as an "honest broker". Once the election date has been called (usually there is a run-up of only several weeks as with Canada), the AEC takes over and runs the election.
As a result we avoid having each state run its peculiar ballots (and getting scandals like the Florida ballot paper). I wonder if Al Gore would have been President if a National Electoral Commision had been running those elections?

The Canadians just decided last weekend to have an election, about a year after we started about obsessing about our election full time. In a few weeks they will have their election over and done, and the new government installed. Our election still will not have happened, and the new government won't be installed for months after that. What is wrong with this picture?
canada has surprise elections and we dont?

"Former GOP senator calls Palin a 'cocky wacko'
Chafee says the governor has revived a 'lackluster McCain candidacy'

Chafee said in an interview Thursday that he found much of Palin's convention speech objectionable, particularly her "mocking" assertion that Obama was overly concerned with al-Qaida terrorists getting read their rights.

That comment "got to the core of everything wrong with the last eight years," he said.

"I consider that wacky, and certainly her tone was very, very cocky," said Chafee, a visiting fellow at Brown University's Watson Institute for International Studies. "So I thought they were appropriate words."

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/26661483

canada has surprise elections and we dont?
I'm jealous of them. How come we don't get surprise presents like that? :(

because we would have elections every year. twice some years.

I'm jealous of them. How come we don't get surprise presents like that? :(

Someone being either mean, or especially cynical about the American voting majority, would probably suggest that people have such short attention spans, the elections probably will be a surprise to a lot of them...

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/26661483

Chafee is pretty much the greatest ex-senator ever.

because we would have elections every year. twice some years.
In the lucky city of Detroit, we are going to get to have four elections for mayor next year.

In the lucky city of Detroit, we are going to get to have four elections for mayor next year.
Cool! How?

In the lucky city of Detroit, we are going to get to have four elections for mayor next year.
who is going to replace the guy who just resigned?

is there someone ...GOOD...in the wings?

who is going to replace the guy who just resigned?

is there someone ...GOOD...in the wings?The former "president pro tem" of the City Council, Ken Cockrel, is becoming the temporary mayor, and the next senior on Council, Martha Conyers, most famous for shouting "SHREK! SHREK!" at Cockrel during a raucous meeting (Cockrel is a little funny looking) and for shouting "You're all evil! Leave me alone!" at reporters wanting to ask her if she was about to be indicted, moves up to Council prez. Cockrel is low-key, might be OK. Dave Bing, a former Pistons star who is now a very successful businessman, has talked of running for mayor. So have some other sensible people; and so have some corrupt clowns, of course.

We get four elections because, of course before the "general" we have a "primary", in which a dozen people contend for the Democratic nomination and the winner might squeak through with 20% of the vote, while the Republicans try to find at least one person to "contend" for the honor of that nomination and the right to get a humiliating 2% of the vote in the meaningless "general" election. And since the mayor just pleaded to three felonies and will therefore step down in a couple weeks (huh??? you might well ask; but it is part of the plea deal that he gets a couple weeks to clean out his desk and give away large parts of what money is left in the treasury to his cronies), we get to have a "special primary" in February, and a "special general" in May, followed by the "primary" in August and a "general" in November, to decide if we want to throw the bum out that we just picked in May.

The latest:

"Palin leaves open option of war with Russia"

FORT WAINWRIGHT, Alaska - Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin left open the option Thursday of waging war with Russia if it were to invade neighboring Georgia and the former Soviet republic were a NATO ally. "We will not repeat a Cold War," Palin said in her first television interview since becoming Republican John McCain's vice presidential running mate two weeks ago.

Palin told Charles Gibson of ABC News that she'd favor including Georgia and Ukraine, both former Soviet republics, in NATO despite opposition by Russian Prime Minister Vladimir Putin. Asked whether the United States would have to go to war with Russia if it invaded Georgia, and the country was part of NATO, Palin said: "Perhaps so.""

I was expecting the 'appeal to nationalism' to be about Iran, to be honest - but I can't say I'm all that surprised.

She was picked fer her looks. Might not mean a whole lot to us,, but it means a whole lot. Many men that already swang rep are gonna be more prone to vote cause of some hot ass they'd like to be their SI. Most votes will come from bible thumpers tho.... But the horny hunter don't hurt.

Dumb bastards thinking the republicans are for them blue collar working selves.

snip
Some of my facts a little off. The Councilwoman is "Monica" Conyers; here's her outburst, and her being told by a 6th grader that she's really immature (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TxP9HgmewlY).
The mayoral elections, I think on second thought, must be among the "non-partisan" races where the general features the top two from the primary regardless of party, it's only the Congressional and state legislative races that feature hapless Republican sacrificial lambs. In 2005, where because of incumbency there was only one real challenger, Freeman Hendrix, I think it was the primary rather than the general that was a foolish waste of time (top two advancing out of two). That race was decided by the City Clerk's "ambassadors" to nursing homes, filling in ballots for Alzheimer's patients; this was caught on tape, "OK, it's Jackie [Clerk Jackie Currie] who's sent us here to help, do you want to vote for Jackie?" -- "urrg, gurgle" -- "OK, do you want to vote for Kwame [the mayor]?" -- "urg, gurgle" -- "OK, now I'm going to hold your hand and help you sign."
The courts did rule against the legality of this "ambassador" program, but it was never officially determined whether the mayoral race was tipped by these illegal "votes" (I believe it was, so do many others) because Hendrix didn't want to push for a recount, and the only other person with the authority to challenge the election was the State Attorney General, a white Republican who just did not want the hassle of ousting a black Democrat (tensions between Detroit and outstate are high enough anyway). Jackie got defeated in her next election, and demanded a recount claiming that her own office had mistallied the votes!

im a believer in "you get the polticians you deserve" but not even detroit deserves what it gets.

The latest:



I was expecting the 'appeal to nationalism' to be about Iran, to be honest - but I can't say I'm all that surprised.

Like i have been saying. Apperantly the US doesnt have enough real enemies, McCain and Co have to go about making us more.