NationStates Jolt Archive

Palin should step down, conservative commentator says (http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2008/09/26/palin-should-step-down-conservative-commentator-says/):

Prominent conservative columnist Kathleen Parker, an early supporter of Republican VP candidate Sarah Palin, said Friday recent interviews have shown the Alaska governor is "out of her league" and should leave the GOP presidential ticket for the good of the party.

The criticism in Parker's Friday column is the latest in a recent string of negative assessments toward the McCain-Palin candidacy from prominent conservatives.

It was fun while it lasted," Parker writes. "Palin’s recent interviews with Charles Gibson, Sean Hannity, and now Katie Couric have all revealed an attractive, earnest, confident candidate. Who is clearly out of her league."

Palin's interview with Couric drew criticism when the Alaska governor was unable to provide an example of when John McCain had pushed for more regulation of Wall Street during his Senate career. Palin also took heat for defending her foreign policy credentials by suggesting Russian leaders enter Alaska airspace when they come to America. Palin was also criticized last week for appearing not to know what the Bush Doctrine is during an interview with Charlie Gibson.

“If BS were currency, Palin could bail out Wall Street herself," Parker also writes. "If Palin were a man, we’d all be guffawing, just as we do every time Joe Biden tickles the back of his throat with his toes. But because she’s a woman — and the first ever on a Republican presidential ticket — we are reluctant to say what is painfully true."

Parker, who praised McCain's "keen judgment" for picking Palin earlier this month and wrote the Alaska governor is a "perfect storm of God, Mom and apple pie," now says Palin should step down from the ticket.

“Only Palin can save McCain, her party, and the country she loves," Parker writes. She can bow out for personal reasons, perhaps because she wants to spend more time with her newborn. No one would criticize a mother who puts her family first. Do it for your country."

Parker's comments follow those by prominent conservatives David Brooks (http://www.iht.com/articles/2008/09/16/opinion/edbrooks.php?WT.mc_id=rssmostemailed), George Will (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/09/02/AR2008090202441.html), and David Frum (http://www.nationalpost.com/nationalpost/story.html?id=756704) who have all publicly questioned Palin's readiness to be vice president.

"Sarah Palin has many virtues," Brooks wrote in a recent column. "If you wanted someone to destroy a corrupt establishment, she'd be your woman. But the constructive act of governance is another matter. She has not been engaged in national issues, does not have a repertoire of historic patterns and, like President Bush, she seems to compensate for her lack of experience with brashness and excessive decisiveness."


(emphasis added)

Note: The CNN story also had links to the articles by Brooks, Will, and Frum, which I have replicated in the story.

Here is the Parker editorial at the National Review (http://article.nationalreview.com/print/?q=MDZiMDhjYTU1NmI5Y2MwZjg2MWNiMWMyYTUxZDkwNTE=):

If at one time women were considered heretical for swimming upstream against feminist orthodoxy, they now face condemnation for swimming downstream — away from Sarah Palin.

To express reservations about her qualifications to be vice president — and possibly president — is to risk being labeled anti-woman.

Or, as I am guilty of charging her early critics, supporting only a certain kind of woman.

Some of the passionately feminist critics of Palin who attacked her personally deserved some of the backlash they received. But circumstances have changed since Palin was introduced as just a hockey mom with lipstick — what a difference a financial crisis makes — and a more complicated picture has emerged.

As we’ve seen and heard more from John McCain’s running mate, it is increasingly clear that Palin is a problem. Quick study or not, she doesn’t know enough about economics and foreign policy to make Americans comfortable with a President Palin should conditions warrant her promotion.

Yes, she recently met and turned several heads of state as the United Nations General Assembly convened in New York. She was gracious, charming and disarming. Men swooned. Pakistan’s president wanted to hug her. (Perhaps Osama bin Laden is dying to meet her?)

And, yes, she has common sense, something we value. And she’s had executive experience as a mayor and a governor, though of relatively small constituencies (about 6,000 and 680,000, respectively).

Finally, Palin’s narrative is fun, inspiring and all-American in that frontier way we seem to admire. When Palin first emerged as John McCain’s running mate, I confess I was delighted. She was the antithesis and nemesis of the hirsute, Birkenstock-wearing sisterhood — a refreshing feminist of a different order who personified the modern successful working mother.

Palin didn’t make a mess cracking the glass ceiling. She simply glided through it.

It was fun while it lasted.

Palin’s recent interviews with Charles Gibson, Sean Hannity, and now Katie Couric have all revealed an attractive, earnest, confident candidate. Who Is Clearly Out Of Her League.

No one hates saying that more than I do. Like so many women, I’ve been pulling for Palin, wishing her the best, hoping she will perform brilliantly. I’ve also noticed that I watch her interviews with the held breath of an anxious parent, my finger poised over the mute button in case it gets too painful. Unfortunately, it often does. My cringe reflex is exhausted.

Palin filibusters. She repeats words, filling space with deadwood. Cut the verbiage and there’s not much content there. Here’s but one example of many from her interview with Hannity: “Well, there is a danger in allowing some obsessive partisanship to get into the issue that we’re talking about today. And that’s something that John McCain, too, his track record, proving that he can work both sides of the aisle, he can surpass the partisanship that must be surpassed to deal with an issue like this.”

When Couric pointed to polls showing that the financial crisis had boosted Obama’s numbers, Palin blustered wordily: “I’m not looking at poll numbers. What I think Americans at the end of the day are going to be able to go back and look at track records and see who’s more apt to be talking about solutions and wishing for and hoping for solutions for some opportunity to change, and who’s actually done it?”

If BS were currency, Palin could bail out Wall Street herself.

If Palin were a man, we’d all be guffawing, just as we do every time Joe Biden tickles the back of his throat with his toes. But because she’s a woman — and the first ever on a Republican presidential ticket — we are reluctant to say what is painfully true.

What to do?

McCain can’t repudiate his choice for running mate. He not only risks the wrath of the GOP’s unforgiving base, but he invites others to second-guess his executive decision-making ability. Barack Obama faces the same problem with Biden.

Only Palin can save McCain, her party, and the country she loves. She can bow out for personal reasons, perhaps because she wants to spend more time with her newborn. No one would criticize a mother who puts her family first.

Do it for your country.

(emphasis added)

The shine is definitely off the apple.

NOTE: I'm reposting this information from the Election Thread, because I think it deserves more attention. As always, the Mods are welcome to disagree and merge the threads (assuming anything develops here).

EDIT: If nothing else, I hope my musical reference is appreciated by someone.

And so the tide continues to turn...

I've been trying to find someone giving Palin positive reviews on this, but can't seem to (for obvious reasons). I was curious to see if a conservative-leaning blog could really spin it that far. The only thing close was a conservative blogger chastising Couric for attributing the "Great Depression" reference to Palin (during her interview with McCain), when Couric herself was the one to bring up the idea of American entering another "Great Depression". That's it, though. Using the search terms "Palin does well in Couric interview" yields nothing, really...other than pundits panning her for being unintelligible. Well, I tried, anyhow.

Things really are looking bad for them.

This is the sort of thing that gives me some hope that not everyone in the US has gone crazy. I am sincerely happy to see that there actually is a limit to how much bullshit people will swallow.

What I want to know is that out of 300 million people in the US, arethese four clowns (Obama, McCain, Biden, and Palin) really the best we can do?

Sadly, Americans are not ready to feel the glory of an LG administration.

What, are you not enjoying the political circus?

What I want to know is that out of 300 million people in the US, arethese four clowns (Obama, McCain, Biden, and Palin) really the best we can do?

No, it's just that the smart ones stay out of politics and do something more profitable.

Whats the matter? Not enough of a neo-con for ya? Palin is doing fine and is energizing the conservative base and adding diversity to the GOP, something they need. If anybody should leave it's Biden, he was a fuck up and should step down and make way for Hilary.

This is the sort of thing that gives me some hope that not everyone in the US has gone crazy. I am sincerely happy to see that there actually is a limit to how much bullshit people will swallow.



Because you don't like her everybody who does is crazy? :rolleyes:



BTW, If you knew the truth behind this financial crisis you would know how much bullshit the american people are swallowing with a grin on their faces.

Because you don't like her everybody who does is crazy? :rolleyes:

Anyone who likes someone who thinks the Earth is 6000 years old is crazy. By definition, actually.

I actually think that this is actually good for the GOP that there's so much concern for Palin that retards will vote for McCain more than Obama because Palin is not running for presidency and Obama is.

Of course, any Democrat (and I mean ANY) stands a better chance at the White House than Republicans this election, but still, the GOP at least has to show its constituents it's trying.

Whats the matter? Not enough of a neo-con for ya? Palin is doing fine and is energizing the conservative base and adding diversity to the GOP, something they need.

1. Apparently you missed the whole point of the OP, which is that prominent voices in the GOP's conservative base are rejecting Palin.

2. "adding diversity"? 'Cuz she's got a vagina. Because her record and views on women's rights* look abyssmal -- except perhaps compared to McCain's record and view.

*(or human rights for that matter)

If anybody should leave it's Biden, he was a fuck up and should step down and make way for Hilary.

Forgive for doubting either the sincerity or the sanity of someone who in the same breath defends Palin and claims that Hillary should be Vice-President.

Anyone who likes someone who thinks the Earth is 6000 years old is crazy. By definition, actually.



Mmm..No. Thats her view and I couldn't care less. Anybody who hates somebody based on that alone is crazy. By definition, actually.

No, it's just that the smart ones stay out of politics and do something more profitable.
Like run companies into the ground and still get multimillion dollar paychecks.

Sadly, Americans are not ready to feel the glory of an LG administration.

We'll make them ready when the revolution comes.

What I want to know is that out of 300 million people in the US, arethese four clowns (Obama, McCain, Biden, and Palin) really the best we can do?

We could write in Colin Powell and Condaleeza Rice.

We could write in Colin Powell and Condaleeza Rice.
Why would anyone write in Rice? Granted she has more experience and political skill than Palin, but then again so do Putin's suits.

We could write in Colin Powell and Condaleeza Rice.

After the fine job they did regarding Iraq and fighting Al-Qaeda? No thanks.

1. Apparently you missed the whole point of the OP, which is that prominent voices in the GOP's conservative base are rejecting Palin.


Nice try, but most of those are men and you missed some of the postive comments.

2. "adding diversity"? 'Cuz she's got a vagina. Because her record and views on women's rights look abyssmal -- except perhaps compared to McCain's record and view.


Of course being a woman in a party that is 99% white male doesn't equal diversity. :rolleyes: And she doesn't doesn't agree with abortion..she clearly hates women.



Forgive for doubting either the sincerity or the sanity of someone who in the same breath defends Palin and claims that Hillary should be Vice-President.



Forgive for doubting either the sincerity or the sanity of someone who takes my comments out of context with a rude attack. Where did I say I wanted Hilary? She would have been a stronger choice, that is a FACT not an endorsement.

Mmm..No. Thats her view and I couldn't care less. Anybody who hates somebody based on that alone is crazy. By definition, actually.

Given that: Anyone who likes a candidate for a political office believes that said candidate is qualified and supports them.
Given that: Anyone who supports someone insane for political office is insane themselves.
Given that: Insanity is a fundamental disconnect from reality.
Given that: The Earth is ~4.54 billion years old.
Thus: Anyone who believes that the Earth is 6000 years old has a fundamental disconnect from reality.
Thus: Anyone who believes the Earth is 6000 years old is insane.
Given that: Sarah Palin believes the Earth to be 6000 years old.
Thus: Sarah Palin is insane.
Thus: Anyone who supports Sarah Palin for the Vice-Presidency is insane.
Thus: Anyone who likes Sarah Palin is insane.

Q.E.D.

Of course being a woman in a party that is 99% white male doesn't equal diversity. :rolleyes: And she doesn't doesn't agree with abortion..she clearly hates women.







She clearly doesn't respect women enough to make their own choices about their own bodies.

Like run companies into the ground and still get multimillion dollar paychecks.

Eh, sure, I guess. If you run a country into the ground, you get a footnote in history books as possibly one of the worst presidents of all time. If you run a company into the ground, you get a multi-million dollar severance package.

If you're really smart, you create a company that, y'know, actually thrives and grows and becomes public or multiplies the value of its shares, like Steve Jobs or Bill Gates or the duo that created Google or people like that. I was referring more to these people, not others.

Sarah Palin in the long run isn't helping John McCain. Even if she helps him get elected, as an actual vice-president I don't imagine she will demonstrate Cheney-like sagacity. Still, the election is close enough that dropping out now would probably be worse for McCain than picking someone better.

Nice try, but most of those are men and you missed some of the postive comments.

WTF? What does that have to do with anything, let alone the GOP conservative base?

Regardless, Kathleen Parker isn't a man -- though that isn't relevant.

And, did you notice how the negative comments AND CONCLUSIONS way outweighed the positive? These are people that would desperately like to support Palin, but find they can't do so.



Of course being a woman in a party that is 99% white male doesn't equal diversity. :rolleyes:

"Yep, that one daisy over there sure makes your manure pile look pretty, Jeb."

And she doesn't doesn't agree with abortion..she clearly hates women.

You really don't want to go down this road, boy-o. :wink:

Palin's position and record on a whole host of issues are far from supportive of women's (or human's) rights. Her extreme view that abortion should be criminal even in cases of rape, incest, or threat to health of the mother is just one example.

But that's OK, 'cuz the head of the ticket, McCain, is even worse.

Forgive for doubting either the sincerity or the sanity of someone who takes my comments out of context with a rude attack. Where did I say I wanted Hilary? She would have been a stronger choice, that is a FACT not an endorsement.

Forgive me for taking your words to mean what they said. :$

But a "FACT"? Really? Where do I look up this "FACT"?

"[S]tronger," how?

Given that: Anyone who likes a candidate for a political office believes that said candidate is qualified and supports them.


And religious views don't disqualify them.


Given that: Anyone who supports someone insane for political office is insane themselves.


She is insane because her views are different from yours? Got ya.

Given that: Insanity is a fundamental disconnect from reality.


Religion = Disconnect from reality? Ok, got ya.


Given that: The Earth is ~4.54 billion years old.



Says scientists.


Thus: Anyone who believes that the Earth is 6000 years old has a fundamental disconnect from reality.


No, they just have a different view on it.



Thus: Anyone who believes the Earth is 6000 years old is insane.


As said above no, but I think you believe anybody who doesn't agree with you is insane.



Given that: Sarah Palin believes the Earth to be 6000 years old.


She has a right to hold that view. I respect peoples rights to hold any view they wish as long as it doesn't infringe on my rights or harm others.


Thus: Sarah Palin is insane.


No she isn't, she just holds views different from your own.


Thus: Anyone who supports Sarah Palin for the Vice-Presidency is insane.


A nice blind statement. Not even true because I don't agree with her on it.


Thus: Anyone who likes Sarah Palin is insane.


No. Anybody who calls someone insane for holding a view different from their own is insane.

Given that: Anyone who likes a candidate for a political office believes that said candidate is qualified and supports them.
Given that: Anyone who supports someone insane for political office is insane themselves.
Given that: Insanity is a fundamental disconnect from reality.
Given that: The Earth is ~4.54 billion years old.
Thus: Anyone who believes that the Earth is 6000 years old has a fundamental disconnect from reality.
Thus: Anyone who believes the Earth is 6000 years old is insane.
Given that: Sarah Palin believes the Earth to be 6000 years old.
Thus: Sarah Palin is insane.
Thus: Anyone who supports Sarah Palin for the Vice-Presidency is insane.
Thus: Anyone who likes Sarah Palin is insane.

Q.E.D.

Why insane? I swear, on this forum, if you have a view which is counter to the scientific perception of the universe, you're almost always labelled as automatically insane. Being scientifically inaccurate =/= insane. In fact I do take some offence to that, since you're calling my mother insane, my Jewish grandparents insane and some good friends of mine insane.

Given that: Anyone who likes a candidate for a political office believes that said candidate is qualified and supports them.
Given that: Anyone who supports someone insane for political office is insane themselves.
Given that: Insanity is a fundamental disconnect from reality.
Given that: The Earth is ~4.54 billion years old.
Thus: Anyone who believes that the Earth is 6000 years old has a fundamental disconnect from reality.
Thus: Anyone who believes the Earth is 6000 years old is insane.
Given that: Sarah Palin believes the Earth to be 6000 years old.
Thus: Sarah Palin is insane.
Thus: Anyone who supports Sarah Palin for the Vice-Presidency is insane.
Thus: Anyone who likes Sarah Palin is insane.

Q.E.D.

Obvious joke is apparently not obvious enough.

And religious views don't disqualify them.
She is insane because her views are different from yours? Got ya.
Religion = Disconnect from reality? Ok, got ya.
Says scientists.
No, they just have a different view on it.
As said above no, but I think you believe anybody who doesn't agree with you is insane.
She has a right to hold that view. I respect peoples rights to hold any view they wish as long as it doesn't infringe on my rights or harm others.
No she isn't, she just holds views different from your own.
A nice blind statement. Not even true because I don't agree with her on it.
No. Anybody who calls someone insane for holding a view different from their own is insane.

Why insane? I swear, on this forum, if you have a view which is counter to the scientific perception of the universe, you're almost always labelled as automatically insane. Being scientifically inaccurate =/= insane. In fact I do take some offence to that, since you're calling my mother insane, my Jewish grandparents insane and some good friends of mine insane.

Okay, simply believing in religion and/or religious origins of the universe is very different than believing in creation science. Although CF's rhetoric may still be a little hyperbolic, let's not play games about what CF meant.

More importantly, the belief that creationism should be taught in schools does infringe the rights of all Americans to separation of Church and State.

After the fine job they did regarding Iraq and fighting Al-Qaeda? No thanks.

Remember, they were hampered by a President who completely disregarded all common sense coming from both of them. They're two sane (as opposed to Bush and Palin, excuse me McCain and Palin) people who care about this country. They have experience in the areas that count and neither one of them is a born again anything.

Forgive me for taking your words to mean what they said. :$

But a "FACT"? Really? Where do I look up this "FACT"?

"[S]tronger," how?


You didn't, you took me saying Hilary as a stronger choice to be an endorsement which it isn't. I don't want her, biden, Obama or any democrat or republican in office, I was stating a fact.


You kidding? Did you not see how many votes she got? Did you miss how many Hilary supporters don't like Obama? How is she not stronger than Biden? You might be the only person to think Biden is stronger than Hilary even when Biden himself said otherwise. An Obama/Clinton ticket is unstoppable. Not an endorsement, just stating a fact most seem to get.

Okay, simply believing in religion and/or religious origins of the universe is very different than believing in creation science. Although CF's rhetoric may still be a little hyperbolic, let's not play games about what CF meant.

More importantly, the belief that creationism should be taught in schools does infringe the rights of all Americans to separation of Church and State.

That's what makes Intelligent Design science, because it doesn't explicitly say the G-word.

Okay, simply believing in religion and/or religious origins of the universe is very different than believing in creation science. Although CF's rhetoric may still be a little hyperbolic, let's not play games about what CF meant.


Well I don't think he was that specific. He just said "believes that earth is 6000 years old". But even still, believing in creation science would not make someone insane, just unscientific.

Because you don't like her everybody who does is crazy? :rolleyes:
Well, some of you are...


BTW, If you knew the truth behind this financial crisis you would know how much bullshit the american people are swallowing with a grin on their faces.
:D You're funny. :D

Okay, simply believing in religion and/or religious origins of the universe is very different than believing in creation science. Although CF's rhetoric may still be a little hyperbolic, let's not play games about what CF meant.

More importantly, the belief that creationism should be taught in schools does infringe the rights of all Americans to separation of Church and State.


It could be said not doing it infringes on the rights of people who agree with it. Not that I agree with it because I am agnostic so I don't want to hear it, but I have heard people say that.

Remember, they were hampered by a President who completely disregarded all common sense coming from both of them. They're two sane (as opposed to Bush and Palin, excuse me McCain and Palin) people who care about this country. They have experience in the areas that count and neither one of them is a born again anything.

Oh please. They were weak minded enough to go along with it rather then resign. Its their job, sure, but lives were on the line and those goons didnt have the balls to stand up to shrubs and/or quit, instead they went along with him, so their convictions clearly werent that strong.

At least Powell had the deceny to resign after he realized how badly he fucked up and how much money and lives his fuck up would cost.

Condi is worse, because she quickly lept up to take his place, and has been nothing but incompetent since.

That's what makes Intelligent Design science, because it doesn't explicitly say the G-word.

Because of what you just said, a zillion things -crazy crazy things - are now science. Hope you're happy.

And religious views don't disqualify them.
Irrelevant to the logical proof.

She is insane because her views are different from yours? Got ya.
At this point of the proof Sarah Palin has not been mentioned.

Religion = Disconnect from reality? Ok, got ya.
Religion has not been mentioned. I am beginning to wonder if you understand the concept of "logical proof".

Says scientists.
Scientists using independently verifiable techniques. If they are wrong, then science is wrong. If science is wrong, then the Internet cannot work. If the Internet cannot work, you can't be posting here.

No, they just have a different view on it.
A view that is fundamentally opposed to reality. Would you say that the Ku Klux Klan has a different view on the humanity of blacks?

As said above no, but I think you believe anybody who doesn't agree with you is insane.
This does not follow from the parts of the proof mentioned and thus fails as a refutation.

She has a right to hold that view. I respect peoples rights to hold any view they wish as long as it doesn't infringe on my rights or harm others
She has the right to hold that view. It does not mean the view is correct, or that it is possible to hold that view while still being sane. It does not mean that it should be discarded from consideration for political candidacy.

No she isn't, she just holds views different from your own.
You do not demonstrate any refutation of the logic in this statement.

A nice blind statement. Not even true because I don't agree with her on it.
Irrelevant. The issue is not supporting the views, but rather supporting the candidate.

No. Anybody who calls someone insane for holding a view different from their own is insane.
You have yet to offer any support for this statement.

Well, some of you are...



:D You're funny. :D



Oh come on, with tha many posts you can muster more than that. Come on, bring it and give me something! I beg you, PLEASE!:hail:

They have experience in the areas that count and neither one of them is a born again anything.

That's indeed a good thing. The nasty thing about born again religists is that they're so bloody fanatical. Now I can actually understand that you try to make up for years of godlessness when the power of God has invaded your system like a potent narcotic, but is it absolutely necessary to be so obnoxious and loudmouthed while doing it?

It could be said not doing it infringes on the rights of people who agree with it. Not that I agree with it because I am agnostic so I don't want to hear it, but I have heard people say that.

I've "heard people say" lots of things that aren't worth repeating, here or anywhere.

Regardless, failing to teach a specific religious view as science in public schools infringes on whose rights exactly?

It could be said not doing it infringes on the rights of people who agree with it. Not that I agree with it because I am agnostic so I don't want to hear it, but I have heard people say that.

Thats great if they agree with it, it is completely unsupported by anything but an old and self contradicting book, and is unsupported by science, and whether the delusional bible thumpers like it or not, it therefore does not belong in a science class.

It could be said not doing it infringes on the rights of people who agree with it. Not that I agree with it because I am agnostic so I don't want to hear it, but I have heard people say that.

Government was created to protect the minority from the majority, not the other way around.

Because of what you just said, a zillion things -crazy crazy things - are now science. Hope you're happy.

I am. Science has become so elitist in the past five-hundred years with its reliance on consistent empirical evidence.

Well I don't think he was that specific. He just said "believes that earth is 6000 years old". But even still, believing in creation science would not make someone insane, just unscientific.

Would believing that 2+2 is 6 and anyone who says otherwise is wrong be not insane, just unmathematical? Would believing that objects don't fall when you drop them be not insane, just unscientific?

Oh come on, with tha many posts you can muster more than that. Come on, bring it and give me something! I beg you, PLEASE!:hail:
Sorry, there's not enough substance in you to make anything out of.

Would believing that 2+2 is 6 and anyone who says otherwise is wrong be not insane, just unmathematical? Would believing that objects don't fall when you drop them be not insane, just unscientific?

A scientific consensus does not constitute irrefutable, objective proof like mathematical tautology does. Failure to be able to do such a calculation would indicate perhaps a mental deficit, or a seriously low IQ. Refusing to believe the scientific consensus amongst the majority of scientists is no where near the same.

You didn't, you took me saying Hilary as a stronger choice to be an endorsement which it isn't. I don't want her, biden, Obama or any democrat or republican in office, I was stating a fact.

You kidding? Did you not see how many votes she got? Did you miss how many Hilary supporters don't like Obama? How is she not stronger than Biden? You might be the only person to think Biden is stronger than Hilary even when Biden himself said otherwise. An Obama/Clinton ticket is unstoppable. Not an endorsement, just stating a fact most seem to get.

Weird attempt to appeal to popularity aside, no I don't think Hillary would have been a better choice for Vice-President, even though she was a close second in the race for the nomination to be President.

For many people--myself included--Hillary was a first or second choice for President, but Joe Biden is a fine choice to aid President Obama in improving the country.

Thats great if they agree with it, it is completely unsupported by anything but an old and self contradicting book, and is unsupported by science, and whether the delusional bible thumpers like it or not, it therefore does not belong in a science class.



Clear some didn't see me say I DON'T AGREE WITH IT! Why would I defend something I don't agree with it? I was just stating what some people think, not that I agree with it.


And they are not delusional, they happen to be some of the smartest, nicest and most open minded people I ever met. My great grandmother was one and she was one of the sweetest and most giving people in the world.

Sorry, there's not enough substance in you to make anything out of.



A flaming duh, Nice. :rolleyes:

Clear some didn't see me say I DON'T AGREE WITH IT! Why would I defend something I don't agree with it? I was just stating what some people think, not that I agree with it.


Never said you did.

And they are not delusional, they happen to be some of the smartest, nicest and most open minded people I ever met. My great grandmother was one and she was one of the sweetest and most giving people in the world.

If you believe that the earth is only 6000 years old, something that flies in the face of all historical and scientific evidence, just because some little self contradicting book about your big imaginary friend tells you so, you are delusional.

And they are not delusional, they happen to be some of the smartest, nicest and most open minded people I ever met. My great grandmother was one and she was one of the sweetest and most giving people in the world.

Appeal to emotion. Just because your great grandmother was sweet and giving does not make her any less incorrect in the belief that the earth is 6000 years old.

A scientific consensus does not constitute irrefutable, objective proof like mathematical tautology does. Failure to be able to do such a calculation would indicate perhaps a mental deficit, or a seriously low IQ. Refusing to believe the scientific consensus amongst the majority of scientists is no where near the same.

Great scientists are often not those that expand an already thoroughly researched idea, but discover new phenomena that the majority of scientists attributed either to anomalies or error.

I'm not saying that ID is one of these things, but dissenting opinion in scientific theory does not make you insane - it makes you human.

Clear some didn't see me say I DON'T AGREE WITH IT! Why would I defend something I don't agree with it? I was just stating what some people think, not that I agree with it.

And they are not delusional, they happen to be some of the smartest, nicest and most open minded people I ever met. My great grandmother was one and she was one of the sweetest and most giving people in the world.

Your great-grandmother was a creation scientist who believed in a young earth?

I'm thinking you are confusing being Christian with being a creation scientist.

Well I don't think he was that specific. He just said "believes that earth is 6000 years old". But even still, believing in creation science would not make someone insane, just unscientific.

I view it as the same as believing that the Earth is flat.

I am. Science has become so elitist in the past five-hundred years with its reliance on consistent empirical evidence.

Well, all the fanatics should be happy now. I think I'll go turn into a blue unicorn and dance in the teacup which sits on one of the rings of Saturn.

Great scientists are often not those that expand an already thoroughly researched idea, but discover new phenomena that the majority of scientists attributed either to anomalies or error.

I'm not saying that ID is one of these things, but dissenting opinion in scientific theory does not make you insane - it makes you human.

Indeed, the scientific consensus has been in grave error before. It would be a rational choice to rely on their findings, but to accept their findings as a divinely revealed truth in such a sheepish manner is irrational.

Appeal to emotion. Just because your great grandmother was sweet and giving does not make her any less incorrect in the belief that the earth is 6000 years old.



Wow, that went waaaayyyy over your head. Try reading what I responded to to get where I was going with that.

Indeed, the scientific consensus has been in grave error before. It would be a rational choice to rely on their findings, but to accept their findings as a divinely revealed truth in such a sheepish manner is irrational.


Science is always challenged and things always studied to the death.

Indeed, the scientific consensus has been in grave error before. It would be a rational choice to rely on their findings, but to accept their findings as a divinely revealed truth in such a sheepish manner is irrational.

And what, pray tell, is the "rational" basis for believing the earth is 6,000 years old? What scientific evidence supports this "finding"?

You complain about CF's use of "insane" and then use similar hyperbole yourself.

I'm sorry, but the mere fact that a thread that started out talking about how influential rightwingers are saying Palin is not qualified to be VP is now focused on people arguing over the age of the Earth is, in and of itself, evidence of CRAZINESS!

Your great-grandmother was a creation scientist who believed in a young earth?

I'm thinking you are confusing being Christian with being a creation scientist.



...What? You might be confusing what I said with something else. She would be what I would call a bible thumper but wasn't delusional or insane.

And what, pray tell, is the "rational" basis for believing the earth is 6,000 years old? What scientific evidence supports this "finding"?

You complain about CF's use of "insane" and then use similar hyperbole yourself.



There is no basis for it, it's wrong.

I'm sorry, but the mere fact that a thread that started out talking about how influential rightwingers are saying Palin is not qualified to be VP is now focused on people arguing over the age of the Earth is, in and of itself, evidence of CRAZINESS!

Godwin's law...?

...What? You might be confusing what I said with something else. She would be what I would call a bible thumper but wasn't delusional or insane.

Except this has been about creationists. I said they were delusional and refered to them as bible thumpers. You responded with some asinine story about your great grandmother.


I dont think you understand whats going on.

And she doesn't doesn't agree with abortion..she clearly hates women.

On second thought, to try and derail the "creationism vs. evolution" debate, let's talk about the McCain/Palin record on the rights of women:


They would deny women the right to control their own bodies,
They are against equal pay for equal work,
They oppose hate crime laws,
They oppose effective sex-education programs,
They have opposed attempts to reduce teen pregnancy by education & contraceptives,
They oppose affirmative action
McCain opposed legislation that would require the same insurance coverage for birth control pills as for other prescriptions
McCain voted against extending Medicaid coverage to pregnant women and infants up
to
one
year
of age
with
incomes
below
the
Federal
poverty
line
McCain opposed allocating $214
million
fund
breast
cancer
research
McCain has repeatedly voted against legislation and funding to fight domestic violence and rape. (Including opposing the Violence Against Women Act, which among other things made it so rape victims don't have to pay for rape kits the way Sarah Palin required in Wasilla)
McCain has repeatedly opposed funding for child care


NOTE: I am recycling some points from another thread. In originally creating the above list, I used a variety of sources, including this pdf (http://obama.3cdn.net/0229472a1e45d95f49_0om6bx014.pdf), which comes from the Obama camp.

I view it as the same as believing that the Earth is flat.

I don't think so. The evidence for a round earth is far more obvious to see for a layman (just get on a plane and look), or look at photos of the earth. Also, with flat earth theories, not only is it highly unscientific, but it also relies on the belief that all governments and hundreds of millions of people are purposefully lying to you, an extremely paranoid and irrational thing to believe. Although creation science is highly unscientific, it does not have the addition of a highly paranoid view, they do not believe in a conspiracy to lie to the public, only that mainstream science is wrong.

Science is always challenged and things always studied to the death.

And hardly any theories have withstood more challenges than the theory of Evolution by natural selection.

Godwin's law...?


Or somebody used it has leverage to call Palin insane......Wait...nevermind.

I don't think so. The evidence for a round earth is far more obvious to see for a layman (just get on a plane and look), or look at photos of the earth. Also, with flat earth theories, not only is it highly unscientific, but it also relies on the belief that all governments and hundreds of millions of people are purposefully lying to you, an extremely paranoid and irrational thing to believe. Although creation science is highly unscientific, it does not have the addition of a highly paranoid view, they do not believe in a conspiracy to lie to the public, only that mainstream science is wrong.

Only because, for some reason, creation "science" is more accepted in the mainstream that believing that the Earth is flat is.

On second thought, to try and derail the "creationism vs. evolution" debate, let's talk about the McCain/Palin record on the rights of women:


They would deny women the right to control their own bodies,
They are against equal pay for equal work,
They oppose hate crime laws,
They oppose effective sex-education programs,
They have opposed attempts to reduce teen pregnancy by education & contraceptives,
They oppose affirmative action
McCain opposed legislation that would require the same insurance coverage for birth control pills as for other prescriptions
McCain voted against extending Medicaid coverage to pregnant women and infants up
to
one
year
of age
with
incomes
below
the
Federal
poverty
line
McCain opposed allocating $214
million
fund
breast
cancer
research
McCain has repeatedly voted against legislation and funding to fight domestic violence and rape. (Including opposing the Violence Against Women Act, which among other things made it so rape victims don't have to pay for rape kits the way Sarah Palin required in Wasilla)
McCain has repeatedly opposed funding for child care


NOTE: I am recycling some points from another thread. In originally creating the above list, I used a variety of sources, including this pdf (http://obama.3cdn.net/0229472a1e45d95f49_0om6bx014.pdf), which comes from the Obama camp.

That Palin is such a feminist.

If Sarah Palin is such a drag on McCain, one would think Democrats for Obama would want her to stay in. On the other hand, they might think it might be even more of a blow to McCain's campaign to demonstrate his lack of good judgement by changing his mind. I think that would depend on who he'd select instead. *nod*

Besides, I'm looking forward to Biden and Palin in a debate. Aren't you?

And what, pray tell, is the "rational" basis for believing the earth is 6,000 years old? What scientific evidence supports this "finding"?


:confused: I'm not saying there is one, I'm not a scientist. In fact I've explicitly stated that it's irrational and unscientific, just not insane.


You complain about CF's use of "insane" and then use similar hyperbole yourself.

How is the word irrational a hyperbole?

Except this has been about creationists. I said they were delusional and refered to them as bible thumpers. You responded with some asinine story about your great grandmother.


I dont think you understand whats going on.




I was thinking the same about you. You clearly didn't get what I was saying, so you took this path.

I was thinking the same about you. You clearly didn't get what I was saying, so you took this path.

What are you talking about? This has been about how creationism shouldnt be taught in schools and is delusional. Thats what everyone else has been talking about. What in Gods name are you talking about?

And hardly any theories have withstood more challenges than the theory of Evolution by natural selection.



Never went against this.

Wow, that went waaaayyyy over your head. Try reading what I responded to to get where I was going with that.

The alternative was assuming your great grandmother was a mean-spirited bigot. Is that the way you were going?

If Sarah Palin is such a drag on McCain, one would think Democrats for Obama would want her to stay in. On the other hand, they might think it might be even more of a blow to McCain's campaign to demonstrate his lack of good judgement by changing his mind. I think that would depend on who he'd select instead. *nod*

Besides, I'm looking forward to Biden and Palin in a debate. Aren't you?

Interesting Biden-Palin comparison: the state Biden represents, Delaware, was the first to ratify the Constitution, hence it became the first state in 1787. The state Palin was governor of? Didn't feel it had to join the Union until 1959. If that doesn't show who the truer American is, I don't know what does.

There is no basis for it, it's wrong.

Isn't believing in something for which there is no basis at least similar to a delusion or insanity?

And, yes, I got that your great-grandmother was a Christian. Do you know for certain she actually believed the earth was 6,000 years old? Or did she simply believe in God's creation of the universe and perhaps the story of Genesis?

But, let's assume your great-grandmother believed in creation science, teaching it in schools would still be unconstitutional and wrong, no matter how nice your great-grandmother was.

It could be said not doing it infringes on the rights of people who agree with it.

You could SAY it, you'd be wrong.

Not that I agree with it because I am agnostic so I don't want to hear it, but I have heard people say that.

Then they're wrong.

And hardly any theories have withstood more challenges than the theory of Evolution by natural selection.

Which is why it is called a theory - because it's been studied again and again and again and again some more until it becomes recognized as true in the scientific community. It's called a theory and not fact because it is impossible to replicate the entirety of the theory in a laboratory.

/in before "theory, not fact" silliness

You could SAY it, you'd be wrong.



Then they're wrong.

Careful Neo Art, he'll think your talking about something totally different and tell you a yarn about some distant relative.

What are you talking about? This has been about how creationism shouldnt be taught in schools and is delusional. Thats what everyone else has been talking about. What in Gods name are you talking about?



Yep, you didn't get it. Go back to your all bible thumper comment. It's not hard to make a connection between the comments.

Careful Neo Art, he'll think your talking about something totally different and tell you a yarn about some distant relative.



You are dangerously close to getting reported, may wanna tone it down.

Yep, you didn't get it. Go back to your all bible thumper comment. It's not hard to make a connection between the comments.

Youre paranoid and defensive then. Given the context it was in, what we were talking about, and the definition that word has in society its obvious I wasnt refering to Christians, but fanatics, literalists, and crazies, like people who think the earth is 6000 years old.

Your reading comprehension isnt my problem.

Careful Neo Art, he'll think your talking about something totally different and tell you a yarn about some distant relative.

apparently constitutional law can be debated through a reference to the fact that his great uncle used to walk up hill in the snow both ways.

You are dangerously close to getting reported, may wanna tone it down.

:rolleyes: Terrified.

Which is why it is called a theory - because it's been studied again and again and again and again some more until it becomes recognized as true in the scientific community. It's called a theory and not fact because it is impossible to replicate the entirety of the theory in a laboratory.

/in before "theory, not fact" silliness

It's only a theory!

.....sorry

You could SAY it, you'd be wrong.


Hey, I am just saying what others saying.



Then they're wrong.


Did I say they weren't?

Yep, you didn't get it. Go back to your all bible thumper comment. It's not hard to make a connection between the comments.

Many -- if not most -- of my relatives are deeply religious Christians. It would be fair to say they are "bible thumpers." But most (I'll admit not all) of them realize their religion not should be taught by public schools. That distinguishes them from Sarah Palin and John McCain -- who are the real subject of this thread, not your great-grandmother.

Calm down, folks. There's a lot of borderline flaming going on. Cut it out.

And if you want to argue creationism, start another thread. This one's about whether Sarah Palin should stand down.

Calm down, folks. There's a lot of borderline flaming going on. Cut it out.

And if you want to argue creationism, start another thread. This one's about whether Sarah Palin should stand down.

Well we're not arguing creationism, rather whether if it makes you insane to believe in creationism, and thus whether Sarah Palin is insane, which is relevant to the OP.

Fine, on topic, no it would be suicide to for Palin to step down. It would show just how questionable McCains judgement really is.

Many -- if not most -- of my relatives are deeply religious Christians. It would be fair to say they are "bible thumpers." But most (I'll admit not all) of them realize their religion should be taught by public schools. That distinguishes them from Sarah Palin and John McCain -- who are the real subject of this thread, not your great-grandmother.



I'll assume that is a typo. You mean should not right?


I also never said my great-grandmother did support it, even if she did I wouldn't know as I never asked her. That comment was more related to someone calling bible thumpers delusional, which isn't true. Thats it, nothing more. Lets not use that to drag this thread off topic ok?

Fine, on topic, no it would be suicide to for Palin to step down. It would show just how questionable McCains judgement really is.

This is a good point, Palin is pretty much stuck there now, any attempt to get her to stand down would be futile.

It's only a theory!

.....sorry

Now that you've been ousted, it is with a heavy heart that I tell you that I must now beat you to death with a copy of On The Origin Of Species. I do so only with the preservation of the species in mind and no malicious intent.

:D

This is a good point, Palin is pretty much stuck there now, any attempt to get her to stand down would be futile.



At this point it wouldn't make sense so close to the election, but she could be kicked off. I still think Romney would have been better...Oh well.

I'll assume that is a typo. You mean should not right?

I also never said my great-grandmother did support it, even if she did I wouldn't know as I never asked her. That comment was more related to someone calling bible thumpers delusional, which isn't true. Thats it, nothing more. Lets not use that to drag this thread off topic ok?

You are correct about the typo, thanks.

And I agree this thread can return to other topics, like Sarah Palin's fitness for office and/or her contribution to the McCain/Palin ticket.

EDIT: And especially how it appears conservative voices are turning on Palin.

Now, this is a thread about Palin so let’s talk about Palin. The reason I lost all respect for the McCain camp, what little I had, was because of this pick. Right now the country is facing serious problems. We are in economic free fall, we are fighting two wars, we’re facing a massive energy crisis, our standing in the world is being eclipsed by countries that would as soon destroy us as smile at us, and the population’s faith in our government is at an all time low. These are serious times, and we need serious people to fix our problems

And what does Obama do? He picks a serious running mate. And what does McCain do? He picks Sarah Palin. Sarah Palin. To quote Colbert, who the FUCK is Sarah Palin?

We can talk about Biden all we want, but the fact remains that Biden, while not the most energetic and exciting of people, is connected to the workings of government. He’s been in the Senate for years upon years, has ample experience at the federal level, has been on committees, met with Presidents, and generally has done his duty more or less honestly and with integrity. Someone, if worst came to worst, I could believe could do the job of President.

Palin, on the other hand, has the great fame of being a mayor of a tiny nothing town, and governor of one of the least populated states, for all of 20 months. Was she picked because of her credentials? Her experience? Her ability to do the job? No. She was picked because she was a loud mouth, bombastic woman. Someone who McCain picked, not to ACTUALLY DO THE JOB OF VICE PRESIDENT, but to “energize the base”. That’s all that got talked about, how she “energized the base”. Not “would she be a good president?” Not “does she have the skills?” No. McCain, in the face of serious national problems, had the opportunity to pick a serious person to help him deal with it.

And he chose Sarah fucking Palin. Because he thought it’d make him look good. And don’t you notice something? All these pundits who were originally for Palin, and now against it? They’re trying to hide their flip flop stance by cloaking it in an aura of “well we gave the poor girl a chance, I guess she’s just not as good as we hoped she’d be”.

Bullshit. They knew exactly the kind of person she was. They just hoped Americans would overlook the lack of experience, overlook the corruption, overlook her total ignorance of the economic situation, overlook her extreme evangelical bent, overlook the hardcore rightwing stance that made NOW, an organization dedicated SOLEY to the advancement of women declare that it would be bad for their cause to see her in office. They hoped America would overlook the fact that she was grossly incapable of doing the job she was chosen for, and elect her anyway, not because she was the best candidate, but because she was a reasonably smart, sassy woman, who they could relate to. Why did they think that? Because it’s exactly the kind of tactic that put Bush in office, twice.

But these are serious times, and Americans want serious answers. And the GOP pundits are admitting what they, and we, knew all along. Sarah Palin is not the person to give them to us

Well we're not arguing creationism, rather whether if it makes you insane to believe in creationism, and thus whether Sarah Palin is insane, which is relevant to the OP.
Actually it's still off topic because it's based on a false point. See, this stupid little hijack started because MK decided to focus on just one word out of a post of mine. (That seems to be a popular tactic on NSG this summer.)

I referred to Americans seeming to have gone crazy. What I meant was that people must be crazy to swallow so much bullshit as the rightwing have been dishing out for the past 8 years and counting. I was saying that the OP shows me that there is a limit to the lies, nonsense and BS that people will accept, showing that they've not all gone crazy.

MK decided to completely bypass that point, without even a nod to it, and claim that I was saying that anyone who likes Palin is crazy just because I don't like her. Which is so far from what I actually said, I think it qualifies as a totally stand-alone post that he just decided to address to me for no reason at all.

So it was MK who went off topic (in a failed attempt to attack me), and the relative craziness of Palin or anyone else is not germane to the thread.

Sarah Palin's fitness for office

Surely her mental health would be relevant to this.

Calm down, folks. There's a lot of borderline flaming going on. Cut it out.

And if you want to argue creationism, start another thread. This one's about whether Sarah Palin should stand down.

Thanks.

And now: *sings and dances*

i said i see no joy
i see only sorrow
i see no chance of your bright new tomorrow

so stand down [Sarah]
stand down please
stand down down down down down
down down down down down

i say stand down [Sarah]
stand down please
stand down down down down down
down down down down down

stand down [Sarah]
stand down please
stand down [Sarah]

i say stand down [Sarah]
stand down please
stand down down down down down
down down down down down
down down down down down
down down down down down
down down down down down

:eek::D:D

EDIT: Admits whole thread was created because that song was stuck in my head. :$

Well, that and schadenfreude. :D

And he chose Sarah fucking Palin. Because he thought it’d make him look good. And don’t you notice something? All these pundits who were originally for Palin, and now against it? They’re trying to hide their flip flop stance by cloaking it in an aura of “well we gave the poor girl a chance, I guess she’s just not as good as we hoped she’d be”.


That's the biggest complaint I have. Palin's beliefs are almost irrelevant; they don't actually seem much zanier than plenty of current leaders. What's upsetting is she was so obviously chosen for political reasons. Joe Biden was political, too, bringing experience to the ticket, I guess, but it's also clear that if Obama is elected he'll have a right-hand man who knows what to do. Palin will not know what to do. Her usefulness will be used up come November 5.

Actually it's still off topic because it's based on a false point. See, this stupid little hijack started because MK decided to focus on just one word out of a post of mine. (That seems to be a popular tactic on NSG this summer.)

I referred to Americans seeming to have gone crazy. What I meant was that people must be crazy to swallow so much bullshit as the rightwing have been dishing out for the past 8 years and counting. I was saying that the OP shows me that there is a limit to the lies, nonsense and BS that people will accept, showing that they've not all gone crazy.

MK decided to completely bypass that point, without even a nod to it, and claim that I was saying that anyone who likes Palin is crazy just because I don't like her. Which is so far from what I actually said, I think it qualifies as a totally stand-alone post that he just decided to address to me for no reason at all.

So it was MK who went off topic, and the relative craziness of Palin or anyone else is not germane to the thread.

However, CF went ahead and stated that she must literally be crazy anyway. I'm mainly addressing what he was saying.

You forgot lightning rod neo art, she was picked to act as a lightning rod for the attacks McCain usually gets.


Of course I avoid the experience arguments because Obama doesn't have much either.

You forgot lightning rod neo art, she was picked to act as a lightning rod for the attacks McCain usually gets.


Of course I avoid the experience arguments because Obama doesn't have much either.
He doesn't, but he didn't just get off the boat, either. He's been in politics, and more important, he has shown in the past two years that he knows how the system works. (You can't beat Hillary Clinton for the nomination if you don't.) Sarah Palin may know this, but she hasn't demonstrated it; in fact, interviews with her seem to confirm she doesn't.

Actually it's still off topic because it's based on a false point. See, this stupid little hijack started because MK decided to focus on just one word out of a post of mine. (That seems to be a popular tactic on NSG this summer.)

I referred to Americans seeming to have gone crazy. What I meant was that people must be crazy to swallow so much bullshit as the rightwing have been dishing out for the past 8 years and counting. I was saying that the OP shows me that there is a limit to the lies, nonsense and BS that people will accept, showing that they've not all gone crazy.

MK decided to completely bypass that point, without even a nod to it, and claim that I was saying that anyone who likes Palin is crazy just because I don't like her. Which is so far from what I actually said, I think it qualifies as a totally stand-alone post that he just decided to address to me for no reason at all.

So it was MK who went off topic (in a failed attempt to attack me), and the relative craziness of Palin or anyone else is not germane to the thread.



WHOA! Better take a 180, borderline flamebait there. Lets not start the fingerpointing, just clamdown and move on. Deep breath!

WHOA! Better take a 180, borderline flamebait there. Lets not start the fingerpointing, just clamdown and move on. Deep breath!

I fail to see how this is flamebait.

He doesn't, but he didn't just get off the boat, either. He's been in politics, and more important, he has shown in the past two years that he knows how the system works. (You can't beat Hillary Clinton for the nomination if you don't.) Sarah Palin may know this, but she hasn't demonstrated it; in fact, interviews with her seem to confirm she doesn't.



Neither of them just got off the boat, Obama has his weaknesses in debating as well. One reason why I want to see those debates, see how he reacts to having to respond right away.

I fail to see how this is flamebait.




BORDERLINE


On topic please. Should Palin be kicked off the ticket or not?

Can somebody make a topic where we can talk about both creationism and flamebaiting? I just can't seem to link the two.

On topic please. Should Palin be kicked off the ticket or not?

I think the OP article actually called for Palin to step down from the ticket voluntarily.

But, your question raises the point of whether McCain really gives a shit about this country or whether he just wants to win an election. The Palin choice causes one pause on that subject.

Her usefulness will be used up come November 5.

That's exactly it. I'm sure Biden was political, balance the ticket. However, if Obama wins, I at least have faith that Biden can do the job. I don't believe that from Palin. And I don't think McCain does either. This is a time of great difficulty for America, and he picked someone to help him GET into office, not help him once he's IN office. And now she's getting stabbed in the back, because American people aren't buying it anymore. They want real answers from real people, and that turned Palin itno a lipstick wearing pitbull galvanizing the debate, into an incompetent, out of touch, woefully unprepared liability.

On topic please. Should Palin be kicked off the ticket or not?
Yes.

I say that because I want the Republican side to lose, and I'm hoping that switching running mates now will throw them into even more embarrassing disarray.

On the other hand, that was not what the OP is talking about. So, to that extent, this is still not on topic.

The way I read the OP, the topic question is what does it say about the McCain candidacy that conservative pundits are turning on Palin? I think Neo Art summed it nicely. They tried a trick. It didn't work. Now they're trying to disown their own tactic.

I think the OP article actually called for Palin to step down from the ticket voluntarily.

But, your question raises the point of whether McCain really gives a shit about this country or whether he just wants to win an election. The Palin choice causes one pause on that subject.



she won't leave, I do think McCain cares a lot about this country as he has shown in the past. But politics is a dirty game and both need to do whatever to win.

Neither of them just got off the boat, Obama has his weaknesses in debating as well. One reason why I want to see those debates, see how he reacts to having to respond right away.

That's true, he is not a spectacular debater. I'm interested to see what happens.

That's exactly it. I'm sure Biden was political, balance the ticket. However, if Obama wins, I at least have faith that Biden can do the job. I don't believe that from Palin. And I don't think McCain does either. This is a time of great difficulty for America, and he picked someone to help him GET into office, not help him once he's IN office. And now she's getting stabbed in the back, because American people aren't buying it anymore. They want real answers from real people, and that turned Palin itno a lipstick wearing pitbull galvanizing the debate, into an incompetent, out of touch, woefully unprepared liability.
This interpretation is supported by the fact that there were several more qualified conservative/rightwing people they could have tapped for McCain's VP, but they went with Caribou Barbie. Election marketing was their only concern. This seems fairly obvious to me.

Obama managed to balance his political needs with the practical administrative needs of the country, should he win.

McCain did not even try to do that.

she won't leave

This is truth. If the Republican Party even attempted to go down the avenue of replacing her on the ticket, I fully expect she'd fight it tooth and nail, because it would likely cost her her political career. Not only would she never again be considered for any federal government appointment, given the embarassing liability she'd have become if she did actually get removed, but it would most likely cost her the governor's mansion in Juneau as well. Her Democratic opponents in Alaska would have a field day with any replacement, either from the "She was such a liability that they replaced her" angle, or, if they attempted to spin it as a personal decision as previously mentioned, from the "If she can't handle the stress of two months of campaigning, how is she fit to run our state" angle. Either way, she'd likely be out of a job up in Alaska. She'd be totally unelectable.

No, I believe this bed is made.

Obama managed to balance his political needs with the practical administrative needs of the country, should he win.

Admittedly, he was in a much more enviable position of having his political needs (i.e. experience) correspond well with practical needs. McCain's political needs weren't very practical, and his campaign's decision to go political over practical is now biting him in the ass.

Admittedly, he was in a much more enviable position of having his political needs (i.e. experience) correspond well with practical needs. McCain's political needs weren't very practical, and his campaign's decision to go political over practical is now biting him in the ass.
That's a valid point, but I'm not entirely sure McCain's needs actually were not practical. He billed himself as someone who works across party lines -- he could have bolstered that anti-partisanship/anti-congressional-gridlock message by picking a Republican with a decent bi-partisan record at either state or federal level. The economy was a growing issue on several fronts long before the current crisis. After admitting his own weakness on the economy, McCain could have picked a running mate with a strong economics/finance background. We are engaged in two wars and facing potential hostilities on more fronts. McCain could have picked a running mate with good foreign policy and diplomacy experience to balance out his warrior/military stance.

In the US, he could easily have found solid Republicans who have such skills and who also heart Jesus.

Instead, he picked Palin. Rightwingers should feel insulted.

That's a valid point, but I'm not entirely sure McCain's needs actually were not practical. He billed himself as someone who works across party lines -- he could have bolstered that anti-partisanship/anti-congressional-gridlock message by picking a Republican with a decent bi-partisan record at either state or federal level. The economy was a growing issue on several fronts long before the current crisis. After admitting his own weakness on the economy, McCain could have picked a running mate with a strong economics/finance background. We are engaged in two wars and facing potential hostilities on more fronts. McCain could have picked a running mate with good foreign policy and diplomacy experience to balance out his warrior/military stance.

In the US, he could easily have found solid Republicans who have such skills and who also heart Jesus.

Instead, he picked Palin. Rightwingers should feel insulted.

He certainly should have picked a VP with strong economic credentials. That would have definitely been a practical choice. But his main political need was someone to reach out the the right-wing base that got Bush into office for two terms. His campaign went that route by picking Palin over someone who would have offered more practical benefit to the ticket. It backfiring is just delicious irony.

I'm just saying that Obama was in a better position. His major political need (foreign policy experience) is also a very practical need, and allowed him to pick a VP that would serve him well for the next four years if he wins. McCain's major political need ("energizing the base") is not practical at all and necessitated choosing a VP who, as someone pointed out earlier, would be of no use come November 5th.

We could write in Colin Powell and Condaleeza Rice.

I'm partial to a Evan Bayh/Mitt Romney ticket myself.

He certainly should have picked a VP with strong economic credentials. That would have definitely been a practical choice. But his main political need was someone to reach out the the right-wing base that got Bush into office for two terms. His campaign went that route by picking Palin over someone who would have offered more practical benefit to the ticket. It backfiring is just delicious irony.

I'm just saying that Obama was in a better position. His major political need (foreign policy experience) is also a very practical need, and allowed him to pick a VP that would serve him well for the next four years if he wins. McCain's major political need ("energizing the base") is not practical at all and necessitated choosing a VP who, as someone pointed out earlier, would be of no use come November 5th.

Indeed. McCain's problem wasn't appealing to the middle of the road voters. It was doing that and energizing the base at the same time. While he went right in the primary, he lost credit with the moderate voters, and still wasn't really hitting home with the conservative republican base. The risk, of course, in not getting them excited isn't that they would vote for Obama, naturally, but that they would just stay home and not vote at all. The idea behind picking Palin, was that she by herself could get the republican base all riled up, and McCain would then be free to run to the center to get the swing voters.

Thankfully, their burst of momentum seems to be puttering out.

That's a valid point, but I'm not entirely sure McCain's needs actually were not practical. He billed himself as someone who works across party lines -- he could have bolstered that anti-partisanship/anti-congressional-gridlock message by picking a Republican with a decent bi-partisan record at either state or federal level. The economy was a growing issue on several fronts long before the current crisis. After admitting his own weakness on the economy, McCain could have picked a running mate with a strong economics/finance background. We are engaged in two wars and facing potential hostilities on more fronts. McCain could have picked a running mate with good foreign policy and diplomacy experience to balance out his warrior/military stance.

In the US, he could easily have found solid Republicans who have such skills and who also heart Jesus.

Instead, he picked Palin. Rightwingers should feel insulted.

Apparently some of them are beginning to recognize that.

I just hope that the country doesn't pay the price for McCain's pandering -- otherwise I find this situation hilarious, but we're in deep shit if McCain/Palin wins.

Luckily, if last night is anything to go by, we gonna be fine.

I'm partial to a Evan Bayh/Mitt Romney ticket myself.

Mitt Romney should not even be allowed to visit the White House as a member of the public. :D

Mitt Romney should not even be allowed to visit the White House as a member of the public. :D
Damn straight. And if he does manage to get past the gate, they'd better count the spoons when they kick him out again.

id love to see palin step down and heather wilson step into her place. she has been on cnn a few times in the past few days as a mccain surrogate and SHE knows the answer to every question. she could go to the debate on thursday with no prep and do 100 times better than palin.

too bad she doesnt wear sexy suits and heels.

Mitt Romney should not even be allowed to visit the White House as a member of the public. :D

ehh, you know...I dunno. Mitt's a republican, and a pretty hardcore one at that, and as such he and I obviously don't see eye to eye on a lot of political issues.

But, I'm from Massachusetts, I've lived through the reign of Mitt, and you know...he's alright.

ehh, you know...I dunno. Mitt's a republican, and a pretty hardcore one at that, and as such he and I obviously don't see eye to eye on a lot of political issues.

But, I'm from Massachusetts, I've lived through the reign of Mitt, and you know...he's alright.

Kind of depends on which Mitt Romney you are talking about. Candidate Mitt distanced himself frequently from Gov. Mitt.

Kind of depends on which Mitt Romney you are talking about. Candidate Mitt distanced himself frequently from Gov. Mitt.

oh true, absolutely, but most people saw Candidate Mitt, I saw Governor Mitt. What one says is one thing. What one does is another. I'm more inclined to believe that Governor Mitt is more aligned with his real political views. People say things to get elected. Like "I'm a uniter" for example.

oh true, absolutely, but most people saw Candidate Mitt, I saw Governor Mitt. What one says is one thing. What one does is another. I'm more inclined to believe that Governor Mitt is more aligned with his real political views. People say things to get elected. Like "I'm a uniter" for example.

I hate taking things from Wikipedia, but I love this quote from Democratic U.S. Representative Barney Frank of Massachusetts:

The real Romney is clearly an extraordinarily ambitious man with no perceivable political principle whatsoever. He is the most intellectually dishonest human being in the history of politics.

ehh, you know...I dunno. Mitt's a republican, and a pretty hardcore one at that, and as such he and I obviously don't see eye to eye on a lot of political issues.

But, I'm from Massachusetts, I've lived through the reign of Mitt, and you know...he's alright.
*throws a hammer at Neo Art* BITE YOUR TONGUE!

How can you say that? Romney deliberately escalated partisan hostilities in this state, promoted changes to the state constitution to restrict civil rights, used cronyism to fill important offices, and spent most of his time as governor in other states setting up his campaign for his presidential bid. Mass was nothing but a stepping stone for that bastard. He breezed in knowing nothing about the state, sold the voters a bill of goods labeled "Mitt," and breezed out again in short order to chase a presidential candidacy. I firmly believe the only reason he didn't do more damage was because he didn't stick around long enough.

EDIT: Basically, the only reason I can see for Romney's drive-by governorship of Massachusetts to have happened at all was so he could pad his resume for a presidential run.

Kind of depends on which Mitt Romney you are talking about. Candidate Mitt distanced himself frequently from Gov. Mitt.

I hate taking things from Wikipedia, but I love this quote from Democratic U.S. Representative Barney Frank of Massachusetts:

The real Romney is clearly an extraordinarily ambitious man with no perceivable political principle whatsoever. He is the most intellectually dishonest human being in the history of politics.
Well, I don't know about the most intellectually dishonest in the whole history of politics, but hyperbole aside, Barney Frank clearly saw the same Romney I did.

I saw no difference between Candidate Mitt or Governor Mitt. Both were dishonest, self-serving, crooked, two-faced users.

Anyone who likes someone who thinks the Earth is 6000 years old is crazy. By definition, actually.

Just because her religious views differ from yours doesn't make her crazy or anyone else who believes in such things for that matter. Also there are well known, well respected scientists that believe that the Earth is approximately 5,000 to 7,000 years old.

I'm not saying that I agree with Govenor Palin's exact religious beliefs but someone's religion should not matter, but their competency in their role.

Just because her religious views differ from yours doesn't make her crazy or anyone else who believes in such things for that matter. Also there are well known, well respected scientists that believe that the Earth is approximately 5,000 to 7,000 years old.

I'm not saying that I agree with Govenor Palin's exact religious beliefs but someone's religion should not matter, but their competency in their role.

We've moved on from this topic, but I'm curious to see you name someone who is actually an expert in a relevant field that believes the Earth is that young.

Also, St. Palin's religious beliefs become relevant to her suitablity for high office when she advocates teaching those beliefs as science in public schools.

Well, so long as we're on Barney Frank, the guy is a reliable quote machine. I especially loved his take on the McCain campaign suspension:

". . .the longest Hail Mary in the history of either football or Marys".

But back on subject, the question with Palin is whether we're offering a good faith assessment of what is good for the McCain campaign. At this point, she's an albatross, but if she leaves, it might do even more damage to the Republican party in general and McCain in particular as the last shreds of dignity to this campaign get torn apart both by Palin hanging on for her job and by McCain's irrefutable evidence of his own lack of judgment. Worst (or best case, as your loyalties may lie) case-scenario if Palin drops, the Republicans come back in 4 years convinced that the way to win the presidency is to double down on the socio-con gambit, bringing back Palin or another socio-con with someone like Huckabee. While I doubt that would work, it would be terrifying if it did.

Basically, I think this is something McCain is going to have to live with, and what he's been doing (namely gagging Sarah Palin and shoving her in the nearest available trunk when she's not being trotted around), while shameless and ridiculous and insulting to the voters, is nevertheless the strategically wisest decision he can make. He can't push her out the airlock for all to see, nor can he let her make a fool of herself any more than is absolutely necessary.

I suppose I should, just for formality's sake, suggest that this could conceivably be the biggest rope-a-dope in political history, where Palin is going to come out next week and demolish Biden, but I think what is more likely to happen is that she's going to come out looking supremely confident, and proceed to lie her ass off and/or make shit up to get through the debate. It's going to throw Biden off (in high school debate, I learned no one throws off an experienced debater more than an utterly shameless hack, because decorum suggests you don't call someone a liar to their faces), but the next day she goes from general embarrassment to millstone around his neck. I don't know what the fallout from that would be well enough to gauge whether or not my advice stands after the debate as the press comes down on her like a ton of bricks.

Science is always challenged and things always studied to the death.
Yet if they do another isotopic ratio study they're not going to go from the Earth being ~4.5 billion years old to the Earth being 6000. They might go from 4.56 to 4.52 Gyr or something like this... but yeah. Isotope ratios are pretty reliable and many different isotope ratios yield consistent results.

Yes, scientists do revise theories, but revising data to the point where it is orders of magnitude different is not something that occurs very often.

Just because her religious views differ from yours doesn't make her crazy or anyone else who believes in such things for that matter. Also there are well known, well respected scientists that believe that the Earth is approximately 5,000 to 7,000 years old.

Name two (you used the plural), and link to their work, please.

I'm not saying that I agree with Govenor Palin's exact religious beliefs but someone's religion should not matter, but their competency in their role.

Someone's religion matters one hell of a lot, when it involves using it as the primary backing for foreign and domestic policy.

And so the tide continues to turn...

Wasn't I saying since two weeks ago how Palin gets weaker and weaker? I believe I made mention of this to Baldy and CH. I was told that "Palimania" was in full throes and she was just getting stronger. I put up numbers on her favorability going down. It continues to go down according to multiple agencies and can be found at pollingreport. The conservative I respect most at the current time is George Will. When George Will is calling for you to step down because you are unprepared it is serious.

I actually think that this is actually good for the GOP that there's so much concern for Palin that retards will vote for McCain more than Obama because Palin is not running for presidency and Obama is.

Of course, any Democrat (and I mean ANY) stands a better chance at the White House than Republicans this election, but still, the GOP at least has to show its constituents it's trying.

I think disregarding the fact that if McCain kicks it she is the Leader of the free world. So while she is not top on the ticket, she is indirectly running for president.

Wasn't I saying since two weeks ago how Palin gets weaker and weaker? I believe I made mention of this to Baldy and CH. I was told that "Palimania" was in full throes and she was just getting stronger. I put up numbers on her favorability going down. It continues to go down according to multiple agencies and can be found at pollingreport. The conservative I respect most at the current time is George Will. When George Will is calling for you to step down because you are unprepared it is serious.

They just see through your sexism.

Last month, my opinion on the election was "I think Obama as a president will make a great political statement". This month, my opinion is "There is no way in hell that Sarah Palin should be allowed within shouting distance of the presidency".

The choice of Palin totally undermines McCain's promise to cross party lines. I could have accepted him as a potential Presidential candidate after his acceptance speech to the republican party, but the chance at giving the most powerful office in the world to a right wing evangelical gun toting hick with less of a grip on world and national affairs than George Bush Jr has totally ruined that.

Drop her. Now. Before I do. (not serious death threat!)

She should stick with her highly profitable franchise line.
Especially the thongs.

Just because her religious views differ from yours doesn't make her crazy or anyone else who believes in such things for that matter. Also there are well known, well respected scientists that believe that the Earth is approximately 5,000 to 7,000 years old.

Respected as what? Obviously not as scientists.

Also there are well known, well respected scientists that believe that the Earth is approximately 5,000 to 7,000 years old. Name some.

Name some.
They'll be back, it's in their name :p

Neither of them just got off the boat, Obama has his weaknesses in debating as well. One reason why I want to see those debates, see how he reacts to having to respond right away.

So, how'd that work out for you?

she won't leave, I do think McCain cares a lot about this country as he has shown in the past. But politics is a dirty game and both need to do whatever to win.

First, don't sell me that "He will always do what's best because he was a POW" nonsense.

Second, you seem to contradict yourself by openly admitting that McCain isn't doing what is best for the country, but what he thinks he must do to win.

Luckily, he is as wrong strategically as he is in judgment.

i was talking to my sister in florida yesterday and shared with her my concern about mccain. that the palin selection means that she CANT vote for mccain. its too dangerous to put that woman in a job that could give her the presidency.

she agreed with me. she doesnt pay much attention to politics but she knows a bad egg when she sees one.

Yet if they do another isotopic ratio study they're not going to go from the Earth being ~4.5 billion years old to the Earth being 6000. They might go from 4.56 to 4.52 Gyr or something like this... but yeah. Isotope ratios are pretty reliable and many different isotope ratios yield consistent results.

Yes, scientists do revise theories, but revising data to the point where it is orders of magnitude different is not something that occurs very often.

Is Gyr (which I assume to be Giga-years) really a unit? I don't think I've ever seen that before, but it's kinda cool.

Respected as what? Obviously not as scientists.

Preachers and charlatans, obviously.

Is Gyr (which I assume to be Giga-years) really a unit? I don't think I've ever seen that before, but it's kinda cool.
G=Giga =10^9

It's what one uses when speaking of globular cluster ages and I have seen it in papers.

I'm partial to a Evan Bayh/Mitt Romney ticket myself.

Blasphemy. I do think Obama would of been better served picking Bayh though.

G=Giga =10^9

It's what one uses when speaking of globular cluster ages and I have seen it in papers.

Ah, that makes sense.

It's always interesting how varied terminology is in the different branches of physics. (Which, by the way, makes discussing the focus of my undergrad research, gravity waves, a big pain in the ass to anyone who reads Pop Sci)

Respected as what? Obviously not as scientists.

Respected for excellence in converting oxygen to carbon dioxide.

Unfortunately.

I don't think so. The evidence for a round earth is far more obvious to see for a layman (just get on a plane and look), or look at photos of the earth. Also, with flat earth theories, not only is it highly unscientific, but it also relies on the belief that all governments and hundreds of millions of people are purposefully lying to you, an extremely paranoid and irrational thing to believe. Although creation science is highly unscientific, it does not have the addition of a highly paranoid view, they do not believe in a conspiracy to lie to the public, only that mainstream science is wrong.

http://creationism.org/topbar/faq.htm

But they're not claiming a conspiracy at all are they?

Some choice quotes:

It's sad what they're doing to the children with such propaganda.

When evolutionists line up old mute skulls from smaller to larger (and purposefully hide the found ancient skulls that are larger than today's average) they make false assumptions linking brain size to intelligence - neglecting reason! Plus their radioactive dating methods don't work in the first place (as stated above), so they have no idea how old each skull is in the first place.

Dr. Henry Morris of the Institute for Creation Research has pointed out that there are many creationist scientists working in industry or health professions, but that anti-creationist bias has become so intense in academia that no one can speak or write openly against evolutionism without being ostracized or fired. Peer review under peer pressure while in competition for respect and career advancement has its limitations. Evolutionists have decided that there is no "God" (none of any consequence) to answer to which means that human consensus is the highest state for discerning truth. How could any evolution-teaching professor break ranks and hope to keep his or her job? Breaking with such a (non-God-fearing) consensus makes one, by definition, wrong; understand that with no "God" to answer to the corruption will grow stronger unless broken from the outside (not unlike a corrupt city police department, political regime, or false religion's heirarchy).

That's what the liberal media and Hollywood have consistently reported since then.

There is clearly no evidence that rain caused the Flood and modern creationists have never contended this. Forgive me here, but only evolutionists keep this false notion propped up in order to openly distain creation theory including the Flood.


All of the above point to the fact that creationists tend to believe that there is some kind of scientific conspiracy to hide the "truth" of God. YEC's are prone to delusion and persecution complexes regarding the fact that we don't let them lie to our children. They seemingly forget that no other religion is allowed to indoctrinate their children. And that doing biology is a choice. If they don't want their children to learn about evolution, they don't let them do biology. Simple.

All of the above point to the fact that creationists tend to believe that there is some kind of scientific conspiracy to hide the "truth" of God. YEC's are prone to delusion and persecution complexes regarding the fact that we don't let them lie to our children. They seemingly forget that no other religion is allowed to indoctrinate their children. And that doing biology is a choice. If they don't want their children to learn about evolution, they don't let them do biology. Simple.Biology is required by the Course of Study, here. :P

Respected for excellence in converting oxygen to carbon dioxide.

Unfortunately.

so your saying . . .good at breathing. . .so they don't have athesma and are alive and not suffering from various medical conditions. . . cool

Biology is required by the Course of Study, here. :P

To what degree? Are children forced to do it right through senior? Do parents have an option to exclude their children on religious grounds during the compulsory years of schooling?

All of the above point to the fact that a particular group of creationists tend to believe that there is some kind of scientific conspiracy to hide their particular version of the "truth" of God. Some YEC's are prone to delusion and persecution complexes regarding the fact that we don't let them propose alternative viewpoints to our children. They seemingly forget that no other religion is allowed to indoctrinate their children. And that doing biology is a requirement in most first world countries. If they don't want their children to learn about evolution, they should home school them. Simple.

Fix'd.

Fix'd.

Fixing something generally requires taking something that does not relate to reality and making it relate to reality. The opposite does not qualify.

They just see through your sexism.

But really though. George Will is my type of conservative. David Brooks, meh. I've always found that I agree with George Will because he's not just a party line guy. He's conservative and proud of it. He also does not bow to every cockamamie idea that has the name Republican on it. Sarah Palin was a horrible choice for a serious election. McCain showed poor judgment with his choice.

To what degree? Are children forced to do it right through senior? Do parents have an option to exclude their children on religious grounds during the compulsory years of schooling?Students must take one semester of Biology, no exceptions. Not on any grounds.

I must agree as a Canadian all I can say is, most of the people I associate with beleive that McCain realized that Obama was going to be the first black president so he needed to add his own first and trying to cash in on the power that Hillary Clinton surmised during her run for the nomination.......Palin is/was going to be the equalizer

Fixing something generally requires taking something that does not relate to reality and making it relate to reality. The opposite does not qualify.

So you're saying that all groups of Christians are militant creationists who believe the government is a massive anti-christ run conspiracy? And that the creationist viewpoint is not an alternative to evolution? And that biology isn't a required class in most modern school systems? And that nobody can home school their children?
I must have got off at the wrong dimensional rift.

So you're saying that all groups of Christians are militant creationists who believe the government is a massive anti-christ run conspiracy? (Etc)

This is a tasty side dish, but please return to the main course. No dessert till you've eaten your veges.

This is a tasty side dish, but please return to the main course. No dessert till you've eaten your veges.

Especially since thats not at all what CF said.

Students must take one semester of Biology, no exceptions. Not on any grounds.

Wow, I did not know that. We are not so strict here in my sunshine state.

Saint Jade, looks like US pollies aren't the only ones just not getting it: stop with the biology. Stop with the creationism debate. Back to the Sarah Palin stuff.

Politics: already a joke that cannot be reformed.
Conclusion: Support most boobied and attractive candidate.
QED

http://www.usatoday.com/news/politics/election2008/2008-09-27-kansas-election_N.htm

Well, she'll help him carry Kansas.


Ill bet thats a shocker.

I've already quoted Kathleen Parker's opinion piece. (Which I thought was delightful. :))

Here are some of the other conservative critics of Palin.

George Will, Impulse, Meet Experience (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/09/02/AR2008090202441.html):

So, Sarah Palin. The man who would be the oldest to embark on a first presidential term has chosen as his possible successor a person of negligible experience. ....

McCain, who at 72 is 22 years older than Alaskan statehood, is 27 years and six months older than his running mate, who was 8 when Joe Biden was elected to the Senate. ....

Clearly, experience is not sufficient to prove a person "qualified" for the presidency. But it is a necessary component of qualification.

...Many cultural conservatives, who are much of the GOP's base, consider McCain's adherence to their persuasion perfunctory. By his selection of Palin, he got the enthusiasm of the base. But what has he got in Palin? In coming days he and we will learn from a stern teacher, experience

David Frum, Palin - the irresponsible choice? (http://www.nationalpost.com/nationalpost/story.html?id=756704):
In politics as in life, however, you cannot have everything.

Ms. Palin's experience in government makes Barack Obama look like George C. Marshall. She served two terms on the city council of Wasilla, Alaska, population 9,000. She served two terms as mayor. In November, 2006, she was elected governor of the state, a job she has held for a little more than 18 months. She has zero foreign policy experience, and no record on national security issues.

All this would matter less, but for this fact: The day that John McCain announced his selection of Sarah Palin was his birthday. His 72nd birthday. Seventy-two is not as old as it used to be, but Mr. McCain had a bout with melanoma seven years ago, and his experience in prison camp has uncertain implications for his future health.

If anything were to happen to a President McCain, the destiny of the free world would be placed in the hands of a woman who until the day before Friday was a small-town mayor.

Mr. McCain's supporters argue that he is more serious about national security than Barack Obama. But the selection of Sarah Palin invites the question: How serious can he be if he would place such a neophyte second in line to the presidency? Barack Obama at least balanced his inexperience with Mr. Biden's experience. What is Mr. McCain doing?

.... So this is the future of the Republican party you are looking at: a future in which national security has bumped down the list of priorities behind abortion politics, gender politics, and energy politics. Ms. Palin is a bold pick, and probably a shrewd one. It's not nearly so clear that she is a responsible pick, or a wise one.

David Brooks: Experience Matters (http://www.iht.com/articles/2008/09/16/opinion/edbrooks.php?WT.mc_id=rssmostemailed):
I would have more sympathy for this view if I hadn't just lived through the last eight years. For if the Bush administration was anything, it was the anti-establishment attitude put into executive practice.

And the problem with this attitude is that, especially in his first term, it made Bush inept at governance. It turns out that governance, the creation and execution of policy, is hard. It requires acquired skills. Most of all, it requires prudence.

What is prudence? It is the ability to grasp the unique pattern of a specific situation. It is the ability to absorb the vast flow of information and still discern the essential current of events - the things that go together and the things that will never go together. It is the ability to engage in complex deliberations and feel which arguments have the most weight.

How is prudence acquired? Through experience. The prudent leader possesses a repertoire of events, through personal involvement or the study of history, and can apply those models to current circumstances to judge what is important and what is not, who can be persuaded and who can't, what has worked and what hasn't.

Experienced leaders can certainly blunder if their minds have rigidified (see: Rumsfeld, Donald), but the records of leaders without long experience and prudence is not good. As George Will pointed out, the founders used the word "experience" 91 times in the Federalist Papers. Democracy is not average people selecting average leaders. It is average people with the wisdom to select the best prepared.

Sarah Palin has many virtues. If you wanted someone to destroy a corrupt establishment, she'd be your woman. But the constructive act of governance is another matter. She has not been engaged in national issues, does not have a repertoire of historic patterns and, like President Bush, she seems to compensate for her lack of experience with brashness and excessive decisiveness.


Fun stuff, fun stuff.

This just in: McCain tells us not to listen to his running mate.

On Saturday, during a sandwich run, Palin was approached by people who began asking her questions. One university student asked her for her position on Pakistan. She ended up voicing a comment that sounded less in line with McCain's stated position, and more like Obama's.

How did McCain react? Did he simply say that they differed on that point and leave it at that? Did he point out that he respected her intellect, and one reason he selected is that she's not afraid to reject running lock step with him, and tell him when her opinions differ? Did he explain that he likes high ups in his administration to hold different opinions so he can really see all sides of the issue?

No. he told us she didn't really mean it (http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2008/09/28/mccain-retracts-palins-pakistan-comments/). John McCain retracted Sarah Palin's comment. She wasn't even the one to explain it directly. He did it. Is it just me or does this reek of "don't listen to the little lady, she doesn't know what she's talking about".

And what's McCain's excuse? Why did his running mate answer a question in a way that is so obviously against what she really believes (and of course she believes exactly as McCain does, she's his soulmate after all)? Because:

In all due respect, people going around and… sticking a microphone while conversations are being held, and then all of a sudden that's—that's a person's position

So, Palin got flustered because...someone put a microphone in her face and asked her a question? This from the supposed next vice president? This from a woman who would be president if something happened? She got confused because someone asked her a fucking question?

Fucking SERIOUSLY?

This just in: McCain tells us not to listen to his running mate.

On Saturday, during a sandwich run, Palin was approached by people who began asking her questions. One university student asked her for her position on Pakistan. She ended up voicing a comment that sounded less in line with McCain's stated position, and more like Obama's.

How did McCain react? Did he simply say that they differed on that point and leave it at that? Did he point out that he respected her intellect, and one reason he selected is that she's not afraid to reject running lock step with him, and tell him when her opinions differ? Did he explain that he likes high ups in his administration to hold different opinions so he can really see all sides of the issue?

No. he told us she didn't really mean it (http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2008/09/28/mccain-retracts-palins-pakistan-comments/). John McCain retracted Sarah Palin's comment. She wasn't even the one to explain it directly. He did it. Is it just me or does this reek of "don't listen to the little lady, she doesn't know what she's talking about".

And what's McCain's excuse? Why did his running mate answer a question in a way that is so obviously against what she really believes (and of course she believes exactly as McCain does, she's his soulmate after all)? Because:



So, Palin got flustered because...someone put a microphone in her face and asked her a question? This from the supposed next vice president? This from a woman who would be president if something happened? She got confused because someone asked her a fucking question?

Fucking SERIOUSLY?

Just more evidence this dog-and-pony show can't be allowed to gain the White House. If she's on the ticket, show her a little frickin' respect. If you lack that respect, don't make her your VP.

It's insulting all the way around.

Just more evidence this dog-and-pony show can't be allowed to gain the White House. If she's on the ticket, show her a little frickin' respect. If you lack that respect, don't make her your VP.

It's insulting all the way around.

More than that, but with all the charges of "sexism", I got a serious image of McCain going "don't worry your pretty little head about it Sarah I'll fix it, but it's better if you don't speak. Men are talking now."

More than that, but with all the charges of "sexism", I got a serious image of McCain going "don't worry your pretty little head about it Sarah I'll fix it, but it's better if you don't speak. Men are talking now."

It's only sexism when liberals tell Caribou Barbie to be seen and not heard.

Well, so long as we're on Barney Frank, the guy is a reliable quote machine. I especially loved his take on the McCain campaign suspension:

". . .the longest Hail Mary in the history of either football or Marys".

But back on subject, the question with Palin is whether we're offering a good faith assessment of what is good for the McCain campaign. At this point, she's an albatross, but if she leaves, it might do even more damage to the Republican party in general and McCain in particular as the last shreds of dignity to this campaign get torn apart both by Palin hanging on for her job and by McCain's irrefutable evidence of his own lack of judgment. Worst (or best case, as your loyalties may lie) case-scenario if Palin drops, the Republicans come back in 4 years convinced that the way to win the presidency is to double down on the socio-con gambit, bringing back Palin or another socio-con with someone like Huckabee. While I doubt that would work, it would be terrifying if it did.

Basically, I think this is something McCain is going to have to live with, and what he's been doing (namely gagging Sarah Palin and shoving her in the nearest available trunk when she's not being trotted around), while shameless and ridiculous and insulting to the voters, is nevertheless the strategically wisest decision he can make. He can't push her out the airlock for all to see, nor can he let her make a fool of herself any more than is absolutely necessary.

I suppose I should, just for formality's sake, suggest that this could conceivably be the biggest rope-a-dope in political history, where Palin is going to come out next week and demolish Biden, but I think what is more likely to happen is that she's going to come out looking supremely confident, and proceed to lie her ass off and/or make shit up to get through the debate. It's going to throw Biden off (in high school debate, I learned no one throws off an experienced debater more than an utterly shameless hack, because decorum suggests you don't call someone a liar to their faces), but the next day she goes from general embarrassment to millstone around his neck. I don't know what the fallout from that would be well enough to gauge whether or not my advice stands after the debate as the press comes down on her like a ton of bricks.


You know I keep hearing this, and of course Palin was a bad choice, but people forget that if Biden comes out as too aggressive he will very likely appear sexist. He has to play it just right, just as Obama has to avoid being seen as the angry black man. It's stupid, but it's the way things are. Biden could very well blow this debate badly and he could do it while actually handily defeating her on specific points. I think people dismiss this possibility much too easily. This will be a very dangerous debate for both parties.

This just in: McCain tells us not to listen to his running mate.

On Saturday, during a sandwich run, Palin was approached by people who began asking her questions. One university student asked her for her position on Pakistan. She ended up voicing a comment that sounded less in line with McCain's stated position, and more like Obama's.

How did McCain react? Did he simply say that they differed on that point and leave it at that? Did he point out that he respected her intellect, and one reason he selected is that she's not afraid to reject running lock step with him, and tell him when her opinions differ? Did he explain that he likes high ups in his administration to hold different opinions so he can really see all sides of the issue?

No. he told us she didn't really mean it (http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2008/09/28/mccain-retracts-palins-pakistan-comments/). John McCain retracted Sarah Palin's comment. She wasn't even the one to explain it directly. He did it. Is it just me or does this reek of "don't listen to the little lady, she doesn't know what she's talking about".

And what's McCain's excuse? Why did his running mate answer a question in a way that is so obviously against what she really believes (and of course she believes exactly as McCain does, she's his soulmate after all)? Because:



So, Palin got flustered because...someone put a microphone in her face and asked her a question? This from the supposed next vice president? This from a woman who would be president if something happened? She got confused because someone asked her a fucking question?

Fucking SERIOUSLY?

This is the theory I stated earlier to a friend.

There are two tracks being laid as far as I can tell. The first is lowered expectations. This has been pretty frequent in the elections so far-Palin's out of her league, right? She of course will get creamed, right? Now all she has to do is not drool on the mic and she "exceeded expectations."

The second track is 'poor picked on Palin.' Even though the Democrats up and down anytime they were asked about Bristol said it was a personal matter, and all the media really did was report on the press release the McCain camp gave them, they cried long and loud about how picked on she was. And now, asking her a question is picking on her.

Biden is an attack dog, he's the "A verb, a noun, and 9/11" guy. And he's a little off the rails. She manages to utter a few sound bits, Biden gets in zingers and she exceeded expectations under a hostile and disrespectful bunch of meanies.

Seriously hope I didn't just call that.

Saint Jade, looks like US pollies aren't the only ones just not getting it: stop with the biology. Stop with the creationism debate. Back to the Sarah Palin stuff.

Sorry, Ardchoille got a little sidetracked.

You know I keep hearing this, and of course Palin was a bad choice, but people forget that if Biden comes out as too aggressive he will very likely appear sexist. He has to play it just right, just as Obama has to avoid being seen as the angry black man. It's stupid, but it's the way things are. Biden could very well blow this debate badly and he could do it while actually handily defeating her on specific points. I think people dismiss this possibility much too easily. This will be a very dangerous debate for both parties.

I know what you're going to say, but mine had paragraphs and I have to use a spell checker.

Spazz.

I enjoyed the musical reference.

I know what you're going to say, but mine had paragraphs and I have to use a spell checker.

Spazz.

Hehe. Well, at least you beat me on that bit.

I enjoyed the musical reference.

:hail: *dances* :hail:

It's only sexism when liberals tell Caribou Barbie to be seen and not heard.
except now the Liberals are crying in one voice for her to be seen AND heard.
Comedy like hers is rare indeed.

After the November election, FOX shd do a reality TV show of her family. It'd be a ratings winner - up there with The Osbournes for dysfunctionality.

It's only sexism when liberals tell Caribou Barbie to be seen and not heard.

I'd prefer not to see her or hear her. But I would like all those who are not yet aware that she's either too stupid to lead or just plain batshit crazy to both see her and hear her.

It isn't suddenly sexist of me to really strongly dislike the Republican VP candidate whose views I can't stand because she happens to be female this time round.

Sarah Palin quite frankly scares me. I don't understand women who are so anti-women. The fact that such an inexperienced candidate, who enjoys shooting animals from an airplane and has done so from a young age scares me. Isn't that one of the key indicators for serial killers or sociopaths: torturing animals?

Sarah Palin quite frankly scares me. I don't understand women who are so anti-women. The fact that such an inexperienced candidate, who enjoys shooting animals from an airplane and has done so from a young age scares me. Isn't that one of the key indicators for serial killers or sociopaths: torturing animals?

According To Family Guy: Blue Harvest's Quagmire/C3PO it is.

This just in: McCain tells us not to listen to his running mate.

On Saturday, during a sandwich run, Palin was approached by people who began asking her questions. One university student asked her for her position on Pakistan. She ended up voicing a comment that sounded less in line with McCain's stated position, and more like Obama's.

How did McCain react? Did he simply say that they differed on that point and leave it at that? Did he point out that he respected her intellect, and one reason he selected is that she's not afraid to reject running lock step with him, and tell him when her opinions differ? Did he explain that he likes high ups in his administration to hold different opinions so he can really see all sides of the issue?

No. he told us she didn't really mean it (http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2008/09/28/mccain-retracts-palins-pakistan-comments/). John McCain retracted Sarah Palin's comment. She wasn't even the one to explain it directly. He did it. Is it just me or does this reek of "don't listen to the little lady, she doesn't know what she's talking about".

And what's McCain's excuse? Why did his running mate answer a question in a way that is so obviously against what she really believes (and of course she believes exactly as McCain does, she's his soulmate after all)? Because:



So, Palin got flustered because...someone put a microphone in her face and asked her a question? This from the supposed next vice president? This from a woman who would be president if something happened? She got confused because someone asked her a fucking question?

Fucking SERIOUSLY?


"C'mon guys! You caught Sarah out of her element! I mean, you cant expect her to give you a real answer when she outside the kitchen, can you? The world is a big scary place for poor little women."

EDIT: If nothing else, I hope my musical reference is appreciated by someone.

Yes, yes it was.

I've already quoted Kathleen Parker's opinion piece. (Which I thought was delightful. :))

Here are some of the other conservative critics of Palin.

George Will, Impulse, Meet Experience (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/09/02/AR2008090202441.html):



David Frum, Palin - the irresponsible choice? (http://www.nationalpost.com/nationalpost/story.html?id=756704):


David Brooks: Experience Matters (http://www.iht.com/articles/2008/09/16/opinion/edbrooks.php?WT.mc_id=rssmostemailed):


Fun stuff, fun stuff.
Brilliant!! :D

This just in: McCain tells us not to listen to his running mate.

On Saturday, during a sandwich run, Palin was approached by people who began asking her questions. One university student asked her for her position on Pakistan. She ended up voicing a comment that sounded less in line with McCain's stated position, and more like Obama's.

How did McCain react? Did he simply say that they differed on that point and leave it at that? Did he point out that he respected her intellect, and one reason he selected is that she's not afraid to reject running lock step with him, and tell him when her opinions differ? Did he explain that he likes high ups in his administration to hold different opinions so he can really see all sides of the issue?

No. he told us she didn't really mean it (http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2008/09/28/mccain-retracts-palins-pakistan-comments/). John McCain retracted Sarah Palin's comment. She wasn't even the one to explain it directly. He did it. Is it just me or does this reek of "don't listen to the little lady, she doesn't know what she's talking about".

And what's McCain's excuse? Why did his running mate answer a question in a way that is so obviously against what she really believes (and of course she believes exactly as McCain does, she's his soulmate after all)? Because:



So, Palin got flustered because...someone put a microphone in her face and asked her a question? This from the supposed next vice president? This from a woman who would be president if something happened? She got confused because someone asked her a fucking question?

Fucking SERIOUSLY?
Even better!! :D :D

This is unbelievable. I have never seen such a perfect storm of fuck-ups as this Republican campaign. The way this is going, if McCain has any chance of winning, it could only be like this (rewrite of an old un-PC joke):

How can you spot the [Republican] at a cock-fight?
He's the one who brought the duck.

How can you spot the [crazy, rightwing, fundie authoritarian] at a cock-fight?
He bets on the duck.

How can you tell if the [corrupt, back-room-dealing, corporate special interests] are at the cock-fight?
The duck wins.

We SO need international election observers.

Well, we can all relax, Sarah Palin's parents think shes ready to be president.

http://www.wtol.com/Global/story.asp?S=9085995

Oh no, there's no hypocrisy and errors of basic logic involved with the calls for Palin to 'step down.'

Prediction of the next twenty four hour crystal ball at The Globalist: Within 48 hours, the McCain campaign is going to make the announcement that Alaska Governor Sarah Palin, ... is going to return to Alaska...

With fictitious letter from Palin resigning her VP spot saying: ... “Country First,” but we can do so only to the extent that our highest priority, our family life, does not interfere with that service.

“However, with a special needs son and a grandchild on the way, I have no other choice. As I know you will appreciate and understand, I am first and foremost a mother.

“It is for that reason that I am withdrawing my candidacy to be Vice President of the Untied States.”
Link (http://www.theglobalist.com/StoryId.aspx?StoryId=7264)

Because we all know that mothers can't both be a good worker AND a good mother, because the feminist movement over the last forty years has been an abstract failure and Democrats have now realized that mothers should stay home with their babies, Sarah will be the good woman resign her candidacy...

One wonders why poor ol' Obama's little girls have to be raised in a household with a man who is away all the time, too busy to be their father anymore, how he will have no time for them anymore and they will be essentially going through their prime development years as if they are in a single parent home (oh wait, their Mom works too, I guess raised by nannies or something).

Oh wait, he's a Man, he's allowed to have a family AND a job... Only women have to stay home with their kids and can't hold a higher office.

http://i235.photobucket.com/albums/ee218/Balderdash71964/JFK_working_w-child.jpg

Oh no, there's no hypocrisy and errors of basic logic involved with the calls for Palin to 'step down.'

Prediction of the next twenty four hour crystal ball at The Globalist: Within 48 hours, the McCain campaign is going to make the announcement that Alaska Governor Sarah Palin, ... is going to return to Alaska...

With fictitious letter from Palin resigning her VP spot saying: ... “Country First,” but we can do so only to the extent that our highest priority, our family life, does not interfere with that service.

“It is for that reason that I am withdrawing my candidacy to be Vice President of the Untied States.”

“However, with a special needs son and a grandchild on the way, I have no other choice. As I know you will appreciate and understand, I am first and foremost a mother.
Link (http://www.theglobalist.com/StoryId.aspx?StoryId=7264)

Because we all know that mothers can't both be a good worker AND a good mother, because the feminist movement over the last forty years has been an abstract failure and Democrats have now realized that mothers should stay home with their babies, Sarah will be the good woman resign her candidacy...

One wonders why poor ol' Obama's little girls have to be raised in a household with a man who is away all the time, too busy to be their father anymore, how he will have no time for them anymore and they will be essentially going through their prime development years as if they are in a single parent home (oh wait, their Mom works too, I guess raised by nannies or something).

Oh wait, he's a Man, he's allowed to have a family AND a job... Only women have to stay home with their kids if their are in higher office.

http://i235.photobucket.com/albums/ee218/Balderdash71964/JFK_working_w-child.jpg

Oh Baldy, its so cute how ever since the Republicans added a vagina youve become a defender of women's rights

And Id LOVE McCain to add Romney. Thatd make him even EASIER to beat, and would alienate the base even further.

Given that: The Earth is ~4.54 billion years old.Says scientists. I lol'd.

I lol'd.

Yeah. Silly scientists and their "evidence." As if that is at all relevant to anything!

Oh Baldy, its so cute how ever since the Republicans added a vagina youve become a defender of women's rights

And Id LOVE McCain to add Romney. Thatd make him even EASIER to beat, and would alienate the base even further.

Find one post in the history of this forum where I am anti women or a racist... Your strawman burns.

Oh no, there's no hypocrisy and errors of basic logic involved with the calls for Palin to 'step down.'

Prediction of the next twenty four hour crystal ball at The Globalist: Within 48 hours, the McCain campaign is going to make the announcement that Alaska Governor Sarah Palin, ... is going to return to Alaska...

With fictitious letter from Palin resigning her VP spot saying: ... “Country First,” but we can do so only to the extent that our highest priority, our family life, does not interfere with that service.

“However, with a special needs son and a grandchild on the way, I have no other choice. As I know you will appreciate and understand, I am first and foremost a mother.

“It is for that reason that I am withdrawing my candidacy to be Vice President of the Untied States.”
Link (http://www.theglobalist.com/StoryId.aspx?StoryId=7264)

Because we all know that mothers can't both be a good worker AND a good mother, because the feminist movement over the last forty years has been an abstract failure and Democrats have now realized that mothers should stay home with their babies, Sarah will be the good woman resign her candidacy...

One wonders why poor ol' Obama's little girls have to be raised in a household with a man who is away all the time, too busy to be their father anymore, how he will have no time for them anymore and they will be essentially going through their prime development years as if they are in a single parent home (oh wait, their Mom works too, I guess raised by nannies or something).

Oh wait, he's a Man, he's allowed to have a family AND a job... Only women have to stay home with their kids and can't hold a higher office.

http://i235.photobucket.com/albums/ee218/Balderdash71964/JFK_working_w-child.jpg

Sorry I just don't see the hypocrisy here. Is this not her choice. Would it be differant if her husband choose to do this instead?

Wait, did Baldy once again was philosophic on a piece of fiction? You realize, I hope that this hasn't, actually, you know...happened.

It was also written Friday, with their "within 48 hours" ending yesterday.

Sorry I just don't see the hypocrisy here. Is this not her choice. Would it be differant if her husband choose to do this instead?

There is no hypocrisy for the pure reason that there is no choice. It has not happened. It was a speculative piece on what they though would happen. And since they proposed it would happen by Sunday night, they were wrong.

Baldy is once again confusing fiction with reality. It's only slightly better this time that the fiction wasn't of his own authorship.

Sorry I just don't see the hypocrisy here. Is this not her choice. Would it be differant if her husband choose to do this instead?

It's fiction written by people who want her to step down, they think that excuse makes sense to them...

Wait, did Baldy once again was philosophic on a piece of fiction? You realize, I hope that this hasn't, actually, you know...happened.

It was also written Friday, with their "within 48 hours" ending yesterday.

And I wonder if he realizes "to spend time with the family" is a standard politician excuse for stepping down, whether said politician is male or female...

Nah, that couldn't possibly have any significance!

There is no hypocrisy for the pure reason that there is no choice. It has not happened. It was a speculative piece on what they though would happen. And since they proposed it would happen by Sunday night, they were wrong.

Baldy is once again confusing fiction with reality. It's only slightly better this time that the fiction wasn't of his own authorship.

Ahhhh I see, thanks for the clariyfication.

Even if it were true though I still don't see any hypocrisy.

There is no hypocrisy for the pure reason that there is no choice. It has not happened. It was a speculative piece on what they though would happen. And since they proposed it would happen by Sunday night, they were wrong.

Baldy is once again confusing fiction with reality. It's only slightly better this time that the fiction wasn't of his own authorship.

Neo Art once again confuses an attack on the poster as an attack against the point of view.

And I wonder if he realizes "to spend time with the family" is a standard politician excuse for stepping down, whether said politician is male or female...

Nah, that couldn't possibly have any significance!


Because she has small children and family comes first she's not capable of being in higher office. Riiiight

It's fiction written by people who want her to step down, they think that excuse makes sense to them...

I'm not entirely sure you know how to read. It's not from "people who want her to step down" and think it's a good reason for her to do so.

It's from people who think she will step down, and believe this will be the excuse she will make. Of course, if she does step down, "spending time with the family" won't be the real reason. It will e because she was privately pressured to remove herself from the campaign, and come up with an excuse that won't get attacked, because who is going to deride a woman who wants to spend more time with her retarded child?

Neo Art once again confuses an attack on the poster as an attack against the point of view.

The poster posted, as his point of view, a fictional story detailing events that did not occur.

Since the poster posted something that, by definition, has not happened, there is nothing to do, but to point out that said poster, instead of making an actual argument, grounded in reality, posted a work of fiction.

Again.

Find one post in the history of this forum where I am anti women or a racist... Your strawman burns.

Didn't you once identify yourself as a christian conservative?

Surely that makes you implicitly anti-woman?

Find one post in the history of this forum where I am anti women or a racist... Your strawman burns.

Your stances on women's issues and your defense of Palin charging the victims of rape for their own investigation speak louder then you ever could.
Didn't you once identify yourself as a christian conservative?

Surely that makes you implicitly anti-woman?

This.

Because she has small children and family comes first she's not capable of being in higher office. Riiiight

oh Baldy, trust me, of the whole slew of reasons Palin is not capable of holding the office of Vice President, her family situation is not one of them.

It is, however, a convenient excuse, since "I must withdraw to take care of my family" sounds better than the real reason that would prompt her stepping down, "I must withdraw because the party officials have lost their patience at my babbling incompetance whenever someone sticks a camera in my face and I don't have a teleprompter on hand telling me what my ideas are".

The poster posted, as his point of view, a fictional story detailing events that did not occur.

Since the poster posted something that, by definition, has not happened, there is nothing to do, but to point out that said poster, instead of making an actual argument, grounded in reality, posted a work of fiction.

Again.


It did happen, the invented story is my story. Not the depicted events of the story.... Nice of you being comprehensive reader and all that.

oh Baldy, trust me, of the whole slew of reasons Palin is not capable of holding the office of Vice President, her family situation is not one of them.

It is, however, a convenient excuse, since "I must withdraw to take care of my family" sounds better than the real reason that would prompt her stepping down, "I must withdraw because the party officials have lost their patience at my babbling incompetance whenever someone sticks a camera in my face and I don't have a teleprompter on hand telling me what my ideas are".

I notice that she 'agreed' with Obama when you guys are making fun of her for supposedly not knowing what she is talking about. The irony never ends with you.

I notice that she 'agreed' with Obama when you guys are making fun of her for supposedly not knowing what she is talking about. The irony never ends with you.

Yep, see, we're not making fun of her opinion (on this). We are making fun of McCains response basically being "Shes a woman, we cant expect her to know what shes talking about."

Your stances on women's issues and your defense of Palin charging the victims of rape for their own investigation speak louder then you ever could.

Um, no.

This.

LMAO... What GnI says about me is evidence of my postion?!?!?! LOL hahahaha

Um, no.


No what? Your suddenly pro-choice, for example? Do you suddenly support the equal pay ammendment? And are you willing to condem Palin for charging rape victims for their rape kits?



LMAO... What GnI says about me is evidence of my postion?!?!?! LOL hahahaha

You deny being a conservative christian?

You deny being a conservative christian?

Conservative Christian? Surly that's an oxymoron?

It did happen, the invented story is my story. Not the depicted events of the story.... Nice of you being comprehensive reader and all that.

Eh?

The made-up story of Palin absenting herself... did happen?

Or your little fantasy of her that you got beamed back in time from 2012, or whenever?

What 'did happen'?

Conservative Christian? Surly that's an oxymoron?

Is this a joke?

No what? Your suddenly pro-choice, for example? Do you suddenly support the equal pay ammendment? And are you willing to condem Palin for charging rape victims for their rape kits?

You deny being a conservative christian?


You're so narrow minded that you can't even imagine how people that disagree with you politically could possibly not also be bigots and sexists?


LOL, ohmygoodness.

LMAO... What GnI says about me is evidence of my postion?!?!?! LOL hahahaha

It would be at least as good an evidence as making up letters from the future, no?

And, since christian conservatism IS intrinsically anti-woman, better.

You're so narrow minded that you can't even imagine how people that disagree with you politically could possibly not also be bigots and sexists?


LOL, ohmygoodness.

I'm not hearing a 'no'...

It did happen, the invented story is my story. Not the depicted events of the story.... Nice of you being comprehensive reader and all that.
So you're saying that Neo Art is correct in pointing out that you are just spinning yarns rather than making arguments based on real events?

Well, since his analysis is correct, what's your problem with it?

Also, that tactic is probably a wise move on your part, since your attempts to refer to reality keep missing by such a wide margin. Better to give up and aim at a target you can hit.

I notice that she 'agreed' with Obama when you guys are making fun of her for supposedly not knowing what she is talking about. The irony never ends with you.

That's not irony. In fact, that's the very opposite of irony. Irony would be that those of us who have attacked Palin for being politically incompetant suddenly hail her as a smart woman, once she said something that sorta sounded like something Obama said.

But that's not what happened here you see. That's not irony. That's called being intellectually honest. We can point out that a political incompetant is still a political incompetant, even when in her blind fumbling around she manages to say something that, on one issue, sorta kinda makes her sound like she agrees with the person we support.

She was incompetant then, she is incompetant now. The mere fact that while fumbling around in her incompetance she happened to mutter something that sort of agrees with Obama doesn't change the fact that, even if she DOES agree with Obama on one issue, she's not still incompetant, and grossly underqualified for the job she seeks.

And when you can maintain your position of someone EVEN THOUGH she happened, once, to say something you might agree with, is the very opposite of irony. It's honesty.

You should try it some time.

Intellectually honest people can do that. Intellectually honest people can look at her entire record

You're so narrow minded that you can't even imagine how people that disagree with you politically could possibly not also be bigots and sexists?


LOL, ohmygoodness.

Sorry Baldy, denying women the rights to their own bodies and refusing to give them equal pay for equal work does make you sexist. Only in your fantasy land does it not.

If you wont admit your wrong or tell us that youve changed your stance, its evident for all reading that my original point (that you only care about "womens rights" when its really "Sarah Palins rights") stands.

Eh?

The made-up story of Palin absenting herself... did happen?

Or your little fantasy of her that you got beamed back in time from 2012, or whenever?

What 'did happen'?

The Globalist story did and does exist, I linked to it. The fact that they think its a valid reason for Palin to step down IS my story. Pins up your reading comprehension paper star award on the wall right next to Neo Arts.

You're so narrow minded that you can't even imagine how people that disagree with you politically could possibly not also be bigots and sexists?

People who disagree with me politically, are, by definition, bigots and sexists.

I believe that gays should have equal rights. If you disagree, by definition, you believe that gays should not have equal rights. That makes you a bigot.

I believe that women should have equal rights. If you disagree, by definition, you believe that women should not have equal rights. That makes you a bigot.

I believe that the rich should not continue to get rich off the backs of the poor. If you disagree that means you do believe that the rich should continue to get rich off the backs of the poor.

I could go on, but I think my point is made. If you disagree with me politically, it means you disagree with basic human rights. I'm not sure what else to call you, other than bigot.

You're so narrow minded that you can't even imagine how people that disagree with you politically could possibly not also be bigots and sexists?


LOL, ohmygoodness.
Lots of people who disagree with me politically are not bigots and sexists. However, that does not apply to people who espouse political views that would have women being stripped of equal civil and human rights. It is the effect your views have on women that makes them (and you, by extension) anti-woman, not the fact that they don't jibe with my views.

Sorry Baldy, denying women the rights to their own bodies and refusing to give them equal pay for equal work does make you sexist. Only in your fantasy land does it not.

If you wont admit your wrong or tell us that youve changed your stance, its evident for all reading that my original point (that you only care about "womens rights" when its really "Sarah Palins rights") stands.


You just never quit making stuff up do you?

You just never quit making stuff up do you?

I gave you the oppertunity to refute that, and you didnt.


So, you support the equal pay ammendment?

The fact that they think its a valid reason for Palin to step down IS my story.

I'm not entirely sure you know how to read. It's not from "people who want her to step down" and think it's a good reason for her to do so.

It's from people who think she will step down, and believe this will be the excuse she will make. Of course, if she does step down, "spending time with the family" won't be the real reason. It will e because she was privately pressured to remove herself from the campaign, and come up with an excuse that won't get attacked, because who is going to deride a woman who wants to spend more time with her retarded child?

I'll just keep reposting that until you address it.

Oh no, there's no hypocrisy and errors of basic logic involved with the calls for Palin to 'step down.'

Prediction of the next twenty four hour crystal ball at The Globalist: Within 48 hours, the McCain campaign is going to make the announcement that Alaska Governor Sarah Palin, ... is going to return to Alaska...

With fictitious letter from Palin resigning her VP spot saying: ... “Country First,” but we can do so only to the extent that our highest priority, our family life, does not interfere with that service.

“However, with a special needs son and a grandchild on the way, I have no other choice. As I know you will appreciate and understand, I am first and foremost a mother.

“It is for that reason that I am withdrawing my candidacy to be Vice President of the Untied States.”
Link (http://www.theglobalist.com/StoryId.aspx?StoryId=7264)

Because we all know that mothers can't both be a good worker AND a good mother, because the feminist movement over the last forty years has been an abstract failure and Democrats have now realized that mothers should stay home with their babies, Sarah will be the good woman resign her candidacy...

One wonders why poor ol' Obama's little girls have to be raised in a household with a man who is away all the time, too busy to be their father anymore, how he will have no time for them anymore and they will be essentially going through their prime development years as if they are in a single parent home (oh wait, their Mom works too, I guess raised by nannies or something).

Oh wait, he's a Man, he's allowed to have a family AND a job... Only women have to stay home with their kids and can't hold a higher office.


Glad to see you admit that leading voices of the conservatives are hypocritical, illogical, and sexist, Baldy. We'll convert you to the dark side soon.

People who disagree with me politically, are, by definition, bigots and sexists.

I believe that gays should have equal rights. If you disagree, by definition, you believe that gays should not have equal rights. That makes you a bigot.

I believe that women should have equal rights. If you disagree, by definition, you believe that women should not have equal rights. That makes you a bigot.

I believe that the rich should not continue to get rich off the backs of the poor. If you disagree that means you do believe that the rich should continue to get rich off the backs of the poor.

I could go on, but I think my point is made. If you disagree with me politically, it means you disagree with basic human rights. I'm not sure what else to call you, other than bigot.


No problem, pins up your fascist of the week award next to your reading award, (if you're not with me, you're against all decent humanity!)

(if you're not with me, you're against all decent humanity!)

Absolutely true. I am for equal human rights for all people. If you are against me, you are against equal human rights for all people.

That makes you bad for humanity.

The Globalist story did and does exist, I linked to it. The fact that they think its a valid reason for Palin to step down IS my story. Pins up your reading comprehension paper star award on the wall right next to Neo Arts.

The globalist story exists... but it's bullshit, right?

I mean - it's a work of fiction?

So - your claim that 'it did happen' is more than a little confusing.

The problem here isn't my reading comprehension - it's that you simply aren't making sense.

No problem, pins up your fascist of the week award next to your reading award, (if you're not with me, you're against all decent humanity!)

So, someone who opposes gay rights is anything but a bigot?

Someone who wants to deny women equal pay and rights to their bodies is anything but a sexist?

Please Baldy, tell us what else we can call them, Im always looking for ways to expand my vocabulary.

Glad to see you admit that leading voices of the conservatives are hypocritical, illogical, and sexist, Baldy. We'll convert you to the dark side soon.

Leading voices? I never even heard of that commentator you quoted until you posted it here... As to the DC insider GOP groups that don't like Palin, that's okay, I don't like them either and they are the ones I want Palin to be assigned to root out their corruption with big Oil etc.,.

People who disagree with me politically, are, by definition, bigots and sexists.

I believe that gays should have equal rights. If you disagree, by definition, you believe that gays should not have equal rights. That makes you a bigot.

I believe that women should have equal rights. If you disagree, by definition, you believe that women should not have equal rights. That makes you a bigot.

I believe that the rich should not continue to get rich off the backs of the poor. If you disagree that means you do believe that the rich should continue to get rich off the backs of the poor.

I could go on, but I think my point is made. If you disagree with me politically, it means you disagree with basic human rights. I'm not sure what else to call you, other than bigot.

Oh, and Neo Art, permission to sig?

No problem, pins up your fascist of the week award next to your reading award, (if you're not with me, you're against all decent humanity!)
That's not the meaning of the word "fascist."

Add that to your list of words to look up later, along with "sexist," "bigot," and "happened."

Oh, and Neo Art, permission to sig?

you're free to sig anything I say, what part in particular?

The globalist story exists... but it's bullshit, right?

I mean - it's a work of fiction?

So - your claim that 'it did happen' is more than a little confusing.

The problem here isn't my reading comprehension - it's that you simply aren't making sense.


I notice you have a problem with lots of things you read not making sense, or you turn them upside down and on their ear and into things that nobody else recognizes ... I think that IS a part of reading comprehension, not just a coincidence.

Leading voices? I never even heard of that commentator you quoted until you posted it here... As to the DC insider GOP groups that don't like Palin, that's okay, I don't like them either and they are the ones I want Palin to be assigned to root out their corruption with big Oil etc.,.

George Will? Never heard of him? What about The National Review?

At least you are consistent, anyone who criticizes St. Palin is a sexist and/or corrupt--even if they are conservatives. :eek:

That's not the meaning of the word "fascist."

Add that to your list of words to look up later, along with "sexist," "bigot," and "happened."

it's also such a meaningless attack. The insult of "so you think people who disagree with you are bad people?" is meaningless to a person who think that those who disagree with him are bad people.

Yes. Yes I do.

I notice you have a problem with lots of things you read not making sense, or you turn them upside down and on their ear and into things that nobody else recognizes ... I think that IS a part of reading comprehension, not just a coincidence.

I'm not entirely sure you know how to read. It's not from "people who want her to step down" and think it's a good reason for her to do so.

It's from people who think she will step down, and believe this will be the excuse she will make. Of course, if she does step down, "spending time with the family" won't be the real reason. It will e because she was privately pressured to remove herself from the campaign, and come up with an excuse that won't get attacked, because who is going to deride a woman who wants to spend more time with her retarded child?


Care to take a crack at it now?

you're free to sig anything I say, what part in particular?

Whatever Jolt will let me fit.

I notice you have a problem with lots of things you read not making sense, or you turn them upside down and on their ear and into things that nobody else recognizes ... I think that IS a part of reading comprehension, not just a coincidence.

You're probably right.

Faced with the possibility that your text was more than a little confusing... or that EVERYONE else is just incapable of reading properly, it seems incredibly likely that reading comprehension is the problem. Right?

And you still haven't explained what you DID mean. As far as I can tell you're saying that the fiction you linked to 'did happen'.

So, you support the equal pay ammendment?

So, someone who opposes gay rights is anything but a bigot?

Someone who wants to deny women equal pay and rights to their bodies is anything but a sexist?

Please Baldy, tell us what else we can call them, Im always looking for ways to expand my vocabulary.

Still waiting comrade.

Is this a joke?

Not at all.

How can any Christian hold conservative views?

Not at all.

How can any Christian hold conservative views?

I dont know, but they do.

I guess its all that misogynistic, bigoted, and hateful stuff in the Old Testament and parts of the New.

Not at all.

How can any Christian hold conservative views?

The same way some true Scotsmen can put sugar on their oatmeal.

And you still haven't explained what you DID mean. As far as I can tell you're saying that the fiction you linked to 'did happen'.

From the fumbling, bumbling, and general incompetancy that would make Palin herself exclaim "this man is an idiot" I think I've managed to discern what could, quite liberally, be described as his "point".

The article predicted that Palin would step down, citing a desire to be with her family as an excuse.

Baldy then claimed that this article is saying she should step down, because she should be spending more time with her family. He then claimed that the democratic party is sexist, because it believes Palin should step down, to care for her family, but has not said the same for Obama, who has two young girls himself.

Ignoring the fact that, not only has he failed to demonstrate that the authors of the article he posted are in any way affiliated with, or representative of, the Democratic party, he has also failed to address the fact that the article stated only that the authors believed she would step down, citing that reason, and did not, in any way, advocate she step down for that reason.

So an article that says "she'll probably step down claiming she needs to spend more time with kids" has been magically and mystically transformed into "Democrats think she should step down so she can spend more time with her kids. They don't say that to Obama, those sexists!"

From the fumbling, bumbling, and general incompetancy that would make Palin herself exclaim "this man is an idiot" I think I've managed to discern what could, quite liberally, be described as his "point".

The article predicted that Palin would step down, citing a desire to be with her family as an excuse.

Baldy then claimed that this article is saying she should step down, because she should be spending more time with her family. He then claimed that the democratic party is sexist, because it believes Palin should step down, to care for her family, but has not said the same for Obama, who has two young girls himself.

Ignoring the fact that, not only has he failed to demonstrate that the authors of the article he posted are in any way affiliated with, or representative of, the Democratic party, he has also failed to address the fact that the article stated only that the authors believed she would step down, citing that reason, and did not, in any way, advocate she step down for that reason.

So an article that says "she'll probably step down claiming she needs to spend more time with kids" has been magically and mystically transformed into "Democrats think she should step down so she can spend more time with her kids. They don't say that to Obama, those sexists!"

No wonder I was confused by the 'it did happen' thing.

What he means is 'it didn't happen - it's a story - but I'm offended by the thrust'. Or... something.

I dont know, but they do.

I guess its all that misogynistic, bigoted, and hateful stuff in the Old Testament and parts of the New.

Heh could be. So then I'm back to, Conservative Christian, surly that's an oxymoron?