PDA

View Full Version : Sarah Palin should "bow out"


tony hipchest
09-27-2008, 07:00 PM
i hope everyone who reads this instantly realizes its not from the "evil liberal media".

http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=MDZiMDhjYTU1NmI5Y2MwZjg2MWNiMWMyYTUxZDkwNTE=

Palin Problem
She’s out of her league.

By Kathleen Parker

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.

tony hipchest
09-27-2008, 07:40 PM
Your right. Give it to the guy planning pizza party for the neighborhood and his raceist, white people hating, patriotic wife. I have heard the stupidest reasons why Palin isn't a good VP nominee. From her baby with special needs, to her 'out of style' hair. I would vote for Hillary before voting for Obama and his scag wife.


:pizza::pizza::pizza::pizza::pizza:

WOOHOOO!

:tt03:

"Cellllllll u BRAY shun" :whistle:

The Patriot
09-27-2008, 07:44 PM
Your right. Give it to the guy planning pizza party for the neighborhood and his raceist, white people hating, patriotic wife. I have heard the stupidest reasons why Palin isn't a good VP nominee. From her baby with special needs, to her 'out of style' hair. I would vote for Hillary before voting for Obama and his scag wife.

Why is she racist?

revefsreleets
09-27-2008, 08:09 PM
Kathleen Parker is definitely a conservative, and I agree with her on several of her positions (but certainly not all). That being said, I don't concur with her on this matter. If Obama is okay to "learn as he goes" why does he get a pass? He DOES have less executive experience than she does, but he HAS had more time to study up on what to do and say, things that make him seem presidential.

I would wait until Palin debates Biden before I made ANY kind of assessment of her abilities. Biden, buy any measure, should squish her like a grape in a debate, but I have a feeling she's a quick study, and will hold her own.

I also expect any truly memorable moments from debates in this election to come from Biden/Palin. They are both the bulldogs of their respective ticket (Hell, Biden's whole role is to attack McCain so Obama can play good cop)

MACH1
09-27-2008, 08:12 PM
As opposed to the town drunk running the country?

4TBNeNHHXEY

revefsreleets
09-27-2008, 08:29 PM
Reminds me of Otis...

http://www.peoplequiz.com/images/quizzes/otis-campbell-from-2380.jpg

cubanstogie
09-27-2008, 08:32 PM
why don't we at least see her debate before we call for her to bow out. Let the lady speak instead of fending off slander from libs and media. I understand your strategy though. Since McCain clearly won the debate, now we move on to slamming Palin and get the bullseye off Hussein Obama.

revefsreleets
09-27-2008, 08:52 PM
Parker is a conservative, and I mean a real dyed-in-the-wool conservative. Her observations have merit, but, again, this is a big jump for her, and a little time for her to acclimate is only fair. Obama had a couple years to brush up and spin himself up into a presidential candidate...let's see what Sarah Palin can do in a couple months.

CantStop85
09-27-2008, 08:52 PM
In what respect, Tony?

http://s.wsj.net/media/palin_ABC_art_400_20080911180422.jpg

steelwall
09-27-2008, 09:39 PM
As opposed to the town drunk running the country?

4TBNeNHHXEY

I bet he's not drinking the cheap stuff either, our tax dollars at work yet again. For goodness sakes man at least stay sober untill after the speech.

Reminds me of that boxing announcer...can't think of his name, but I'm sure many of you know who I'm talking about the older guy, who would slur all the way through the fight.

Leftoverhard
09-28-2008, 04:05 PM
As opposed to the town drunk running the country?


Uh, there's already a town drunk running the country.

Crushzilla
09-28-2008, 04:06 PM
Uh, there's already a town drunk running the country.

Please.

The village idiot.

Big D
09-28-2008, 05:51 PM
this chick thinks she has experince in foreign policy because she claims she can see russia from her back yard. Complete idiot. Mccain picked her as a trophy canidate. And by the way if obama were white everyone in here would be calling him the next jfk. I dont know to many 72 year olds that are in touch and on the ball. Lets face it. Mccain should be driking prune juice in a retirement home in florida

HometownGal
09-28-2008, 07:17 PM
this chick thinks she has experince in foreign policy because she claims she can see russia from her back yard. Complete idiot. Mccain picked her as a trophy canidate. And by the way if obama were white everyone in here would be calling him the next jfk. I dont know to many 72 year olds that are in touch and on the ball. Lets face it. Mccain should be driking prune juice in a retirement home in florida

I think you are very wrong about Sarah Palin, D. She's going to surprise you and all of the other Demos come Thursday night. Her saying she can see Russia from her back yard is no more idiotic than Obama stating John McCain doesn't understand terrorism. :doh:

I can't speak for everyone else here, but if Obama were as white as the pure driven snow, I still wouldn't vote for him for the same reasons I've stated on this forum.

I've always respected your thoughts, D, but seems to me you are the one with the prejudice here:

I dont know to many 72 year olds that are in touch and on the ball. Lets face it. Mccain should be driking prune juice in a retirement home in florida

Hammer67
09-28-2008, 07:52 PM
this chick thinks she has experince in foreign policy because she claims she can see russia from her back yard. Complete idiot. Mccain picked her as a trophy canidate. And by the way if obama were white everyone in here would be calling him the next jfk. I dont know to many 72 year olds that are in touch and on the ball. Lets face it. Mccain should be driking prune juice in a retirement home in florida


Have to call BS on this. JFK was more of a moderate and closer to McCain in philosophy. Obama is a party line liberal.

Hammer67
09-28-2008, 07:53 PM
By the way...the bikini shot of "Palin" holding the gun is a fake...

stillers4me
09-28-2008, 07:57 PM
I dont know to many 72 year olds that are in touch and on the ball. Lets face it. Mccain should be driking prune juice in a retirement home in florida

Tell that to my parents, who at 72 are still traveling the country every summer on a triked out Gold Wing.

Or tell that to Dick LeBeau.

What an ignorant statement to make.

Big D
09-28-2008, 08:12 PM
I think you are very wrong about Sarah Palin, D. She's going to surprise you and all of the other Demos come Thursday night. Her saying she can see Russia from her back yard is no more idiotic than Obama stating John McCain doesn't understand terrorism. :doh:

I can't speak for everyone else here, but if Obama were as white as the pure driven snow, I still wouldn't vote for him for the same reasons I've stated on this forum.

I've always respected your thoughts, D, but seems to me you are the one with the prejudice here:

please tell me you haven't seen her interview with katie couric. She sounded like a complete idiot. There is a reason mccain kept her in the closet for the past month. She is going to be a programed robot.

Big D
09-28-2008, 08:13 PM
Tell that to my parents, who at 72 are still traveling the country every summer on a triked out Gold Wing.

Or tell that to Dick LeBeau.

What an ignorant statement to make.

there is a major difference in riding across country and running the most powerful country in the world

cubanstogie
09-28-2008, 08:20 PM
there is a major difference in riding across country and running the most powerful country in the world

I can't believe a lib is Holding a mans age against him in obtaining a job. Thats discrimination something you guys usually feel so strongly about. Or does that only apply to minorities or ex felons.

Big D
09-28-2008, 08:23 PM
I can't believe a lib is Holding a mans age against him in obtaining a job. Thats discrimination something you guys usually feel so strongly about. Or does that only apply to minorities or ex felons.

If this country wasnt as jacked up as it is age wouldn't be an issue. Fact is the next president has massive clean up to take care of. Age has to be an issue considering the condition our country is currently in

cubanstogie
09-28-2008, 08:27 PM
please tell me you haven't seen her interview with katie couric. She sounded like a complete idiot. There is a reason mccain kept her in the closet for the past month. She is going to be a programed robot.

She obviously hasn't learned to be a politician and avoid the questions thats for sure. But she will learn in time. In fairness Couric was asking questions about McCains accomplishments. If anything McCain she be asked about hers, he chose her not the other way around. Why would she know his accomplishments. I agree it wasn't a good interview but Couric has to be responsible for some of that. Terrible journalism. Actually not really journalism, I am sure Katie wants Palin to fail in a big way. You libs see the shiiiiitttt you want to see. Tunnel vision at its finest.

Big D
09-28-2008, 08:30 PM
She obviously hasn't learned to be a politician and avoid the questions thats for sure. But she will learn in time. In fairness Couric was asking questions about McCains accomplishments. If anything McCain she be asked about hers, he chose her not the other way around. Why would she know his accomplishments. I agree it wasn't a good interview but Couric has to be responsible for some of that. Terrible journalism. Actually not really journalism, I am sure Katie wants Palin to fail in a big way. You libs see the shiiiiitttt you want to see. Tunnel vision at its finest.

the main problem that the mccain campaign has done is shelter her for a month then throw her at couric. She needed to be interviewed by someone that will throw only softballs.

cubanstogie
09-28-2008, 08:34 PM
If this country wasnt as jacked up as it is age wouldn't be an issue. Fact is the next president has massive clean up to take care of. Age has to be an issue considering the condition our country is currently in


I don't agree country jacked up. The deficiencies this country does have is due to terrorism, crime, drugs. The economy is cyclical, there are now good buys and cheap stocks. I would rather feel safe and have my daughter safe at school and other outings than be wealthy. It is a sad state when you have to worry about kids wherever they go. People need to be held accountable. We need to get tough on crime. Quit giving people third and fourth chances. This country doesn't guarantee success, but you do get the opportunity. There is no place better.

fansince'76
09-28-2008, 08:37 PM
If this country wasnt as jacked up as it is age wouldn't be an issue. Fact is the next president has massive clean up to take care of. Age has to be an issue considering the condition our country is currently in

You mean like the 7%+ unemployment rate and 14%+ inflation rate Reagan inherited as a 70-year-old from Jimmah C. back in 1981?

Big D
09-28-2008, 08:56 PM
You ignorant puke. She doesn't have to be a foreign policy wizzard because McCain has that expirence (lots of it) and HE is running for president (not her). What foreign policy expirence does Obama have? Exactly. It SOUNDS good when he talks, but what has he DONE? I can sh*t in a box, and wrap it up pretty and put some good smelling foo foo juice on it to hide the smell, but when you open it up, what do you have? Same as before, a stinky pile of SH*T. It doesn't matter if Obama is black or white. If he wasn't so far left, he would stand a better chance. As I said before, I would vote for Hillary before him! Black has nothing to do with it, it is more of the 2years as a senator and he didn't do anything in those two years! If he waited a few years to run, then OK maybe but not after two years! GET A CLUE. Being president takes more then just talking about what you'll do!

puke? nice... I would research palin and watch her interview if i were you before you waste your time being a tough guy behind a computer monitor

fansince'76
09-28-2008, 09:00 PM
You ignorant puke.

Watch it with the personal stuff.

GBMelBlount
09-28-2008, 09:16 PM
If this country wasnt as jacked up as it is age wouldn't be an issue. Fact is the next president has massive clean up to take care of. Age has to be an issue considering the condition our country is currently in

Nice post "Big D" :chuckle: Seriously, what do you feel the biggest problems are in our country right now "Big D" and what do you feel that arguable the most inexperienced candidate in 100 years (Obama) would do to make it better? I mean seriously, is he going to pork barrel us into prosperity?

MACH1
09-28-2008, 09:16 PM
please tell me you haven't seen her interview with katie couric. She sounded like a complete idiot. There is a reason mccain kept her in the closet for the past month. She is going to be a programed robot.

And that interview wasn't in the least bit biased was it? :doh:

Big D
09-28-2008, 09:18 PM
Nice post "Big D" :chuckle: Seriously, what do you feel the biggest problems are in our country right now "Big D" and what do you feel that arguable the most inexperienced candidate in 100 years (Obama) do to make it better?

Fact is I feel like both canidates are qualified. But I personally dont want a guy who voted in favor of bush 95% of the time.

GBMelBlount
09-28-2008, 09:22 PM
Let me ask you "Big D" what do you think the main problems are in our country right now and what do you feel Obama will do better than McCain to improve our countries situation? Not Bush, McCain.

HometownGal
09-28-2008, 09:29 PM
please tell me you haven't seen her interview with katie couric. She sounded like a complete idiot. There is a reason mccain kept her in the closet for the past month. She is going to be a programed robot.

I have seen her interview with Couric and actually, Couric is the one who came out of that one sounding like a bumbling fool. The questions she asked were completely slanted and she didn't hide her deliberate attempt at baiting Palin very well. C'mon D, you know better. Who is Couric's employer? Yep - CBS (Complete Bull Shit) News - the grand pubahs of liberal journalism. :doh:

J-Mac is a very intelligent man with an abundance of common sense and political savvy. Do you honestly believe he would choose a running mate only to keep her hidden in the closet until election day? :doh:

Why do you DemoRATs keep trying (unsuccessfully I might add) to tear Palin down? The answer is very simple. Because John McCain has an exemplary (though not 100% perfect) record (as does Palin) and you Dems are trying to throw whatever you can against the wall hoping that something sticks because you have nothing else. Seems to me like the almighty Demos are running scared. :horror: :laughing:

Might I remind you -

The GOP Presidential candidate is JOHN McCAIN, not Sarah Palin.

MACH1
09-28-2008, 09:37 PM
I have seen her interview with Couric and actually, Couric is the one who came out of that one sounding like a bumbling fool. The questions she asked were completely slanted and she didn't hide her deliberate attempt at baiting Palin very well. C'mon D, you know better. Who is Couric's employer? Yep - CBS (Complete Bull Shit) News - the grand pubahs of liberal journalism. :doh:

J-Mac is a very intelligent man with an abundance of common sense and political savvy. Do you honestly believe he would choose a running mate only to keep her hidden in the closet until election day? :doh:

Why do you DemoRATs keep trying (unsuccessfully I might add) to tear Palin down? The answer is very simple. Because John McCain has an exemplary (though not 100% perfect) record (as does Palin) and you Dems are trying to throw whatever you can against the wall hoping that something sticks because you have nothing else. Seems to me like the almighty Demos are running scared. :horror: :laughing:

Might I remind you -

The GOP Presidential candidate is JOHN McCAIN, not Sarah Palin.

Palin<Obama

ShutDown24
09-28-2008, 09:39 PM
i hope everyone who reads this instantly realizes its not from the "evil liberal media".

http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=MDZiMDhjYTU1NmI5Y2MwZjg2MWNiMWMyYTUxZDkwNTE=

Palin Problem
She’s out of her league.

By Kathleen Parker

Tony,

If you made half as many football posts as you do irrelevant republican bashing ones, this forum's pigskin topics would get near a 50% boost.

Dino 6 Rings
09-28-2008, 09:40 PM
please tell me you haven't seen her interview with katie couric. She sounded like a complete idiot. There is a reason mccain kept her in the closet for the past month. She is going to be a programed robot.

I think the problem is the McCain people want her to stay on their script. They should just let her go off and speak her true mind, that's what got her elected to Governor in the first place. Let the woman just go with it and if she gaffe's so what, just let her take her lumps and go!

HometownGal
09-28-2008, 09:48 PM
Tried 8 times to edit my post but with the ongoing database errors, it was impossible. :banging:

I wanted to add the following in response to Big D's post which I answered above.

P.S. Implying that any voter would not cast their vote for Obama because of his race is highly hypocritical, considering who Obama's best bud and by his own words - his mentor - was.

Polamalu Princess
09-28-2008, 11:10 PM
I have little to write in heated posts like this, but I will say that SP is a grand soul and if you REALLY get to know her and what she REALLY stands for – you may want to be a little easier on her. All parties will never be united, but we can all at least agree to look at all the facts before making comments.

This may sound arrogant and it is not meant to be, but I am a very intelligent woman and I look at all sides before making a decision and/or an opinion. I can say that I DO NOT want EITHER Presidential candidate to be President of the GREAT AND POWERFUL USA. I have told everyone that this would be the first time in 18 years that I would refrain from voting because I could not vote for either potential president.

Tell all of us – are YOU registered to vote? Tell all of us – did YOU check out and read about All the people that are running – FROM BOTH SIDES? Are YOU ready to stop blaming and JUST DO IT? Are WE all smarter (yes and the government should hear our voices? Do they?) – so get your ass in gear and get educated on who we are voting for this year.

Again, I am not going to give support to anyone at this stage, but I just want ALL OF US to get the facts and not vote on feelings. Feelings are not good in a business situation – just the facts of running the business. What is good and what is bad; the good and the bad can get very mixed up if we put personal feelings into decisions and not facts.

This is just my thoughts and I will not respond to attacks or praise.

Have a wonderful night Steeler fans – we are united here, even with our differences, but we ALL unite for our love of a great team.

May God bless all of you and keep you in His loving care,

Just a concerned USA citizen

Preacher
09-28-2008, 11:25 PM
Never mind... couldn't find the right words and right balance for what I wanted to say.

Hammer67
09-29-2008, 07:00 AM
Palin<Obama


Democrats do realize that it's John McCain running for President, right?

:laughing:

:coffee:

revefsreleets
09-29-2008, 10:09 AM
It might be prudent before bashing the shit out of her to actually see how she does Thursday in her debate with Biden.

Cape Cod Steel Head
09-29-2008, 08:11 PM
Democrats do realize that it's John McCain running for President, right?

:laughing:

:coffee:Yes, and given McCain"s age and health I think people are rightfully concerned about her being a heartbeat away from leading the most powerful nation on earth. Get her away from a TelePrompter and she's a deer in the headlights. Unless she's talking about her family.

revefsreleets
09-29-2008, 08:18 PM
Again, isn't it at least fair to let her go through the debate before you trash her? Obama knew nothing about these matters a few years ago, but he was given some time to learn and study up. Maybe Palin is a quick study?

Guarantee if these same type of questions were asked of Obama after his great 2004 convention speech, he'd be just as "deer in the headlights".

tony hipchest
09-29-2008, 08:25 PM
Again, isn't it at least fair to let her go through the debate before you trash her? Obama knew nothing about these matters a few years ago, but he was given some time to learn and study up. Maybe Palin is a quick study?

Guarantee if these same type of questions were asked of Obama after his great 2004 convention speech, he'd be just as "deer in the headlights".in all fairness, the 2 appearances she has made (the mccains campaigns fault not hers) she has looked like a deer in headlights.

and in all fairness again, obama wasnt on kerry's ticket in '04.

im just wondering if sarahcudda will accuse a drunken biden of driving his wife and daughter off a bridge.

should be an interresting debate, regardless. sucks i'll miss it.

Polamalu Princess
09-29-2008, 09:33 PM
Never mind... couldn't find the right words and right balance for what I wanted to say.

AHHH - was that for me????:hunch::wink:

Preacher
09-29-2008, 10:20 PM
AHHH - was that for me????:hunch::wink:


Naaa...

I was going to quote a mod with something humorous... but instead of coming across how I meant it... it was sounding like I was ragging on the mods... no matter how I worded it. So I erased it since that wasn't the intent of the post.

revefsreleets
09-29-2008, 10:23 PM
in all fairness, the 2 appearances she has made (the mccains campaigns fault not hers) she has looked like a deer in headlights.

and in all fairness again, obama wasnt on kerry's ticket in '04.

im just wondering if sarahcudda will accuse a drunken biden of driving his wife and daughter off a bridge.

should be an interresting debate, regardless. sucks i'll miss it.

But Obama became "Starbama" from that one speech...and he had a LOOOOOOONG time to ramp up his game. Years. Sarah has had weeks.

If she even holds her own she wins, since the left has already RIPPED her up. Biden is very vulnerable, too. He's a little....ummmm....nutty and verbose. And Biden is the experience on the Dems ticket. If he doesn't eat her up in this debate, I cannot (and I mean this sincerely) WAIT to see how you guys spin it. The creativity from the left has been remarkable concerning Obama, so...

tony hipchest
09-30-2008, 01:28 AM
But Obama became "Starbama" from that one speech...and he had a LOOOOOOONG time to ramp up his game. Years. Sarah has had weeks.

If she even holds her own she wins, since the left has already RIPPED her up. Biden is very vulnerable, too. He's a little....ummmm....nutty and verbose. And Biden is the experience on the Dems ticket. If he doesn't eat her up in this debate, I cannot (and I mean this sincerely) WAIT to see how you guys spin it. The creativity from the left has been remarkable concerning Obama, so...


*sniffle* that tears me up.

has the "one speech" been youre ace in the hole or pinto pictures?

:toofunny:

Preacher
09-30-2008, 02:01 AM
*sniffle* that tears me up.

has the "one speech" been youre ace in the hole or pinto pictures?

:toofunny:


Personally.. I think neither...

Attacks on Palin for her equivalent experience seems more likely.

revefsreleets
09-30-2008, 09:41 AM
*sniffle* that tears me up.

has the "one speech" been youre ace in the hole or pinto pictures?

:toofunny:

Obama is the 2008 Democratic nominee because of his 2004 speech for Kerry. It's a direct 1 to 1 correlation. He doesn't give that speech, and he's not the candidate this year.

And the Pinto thing just is what it is. I've seen the 3 or 4 of you make some REAL reaches to defend Obama, and, again, like I said, I get that. He's your nominee, so you are doing your best to make him what he's clearly not, which is a qualified presidential candidate. There have even been, on occasion, a couple points scored here and there, but, really, for the most part, you guys build Obama up by tearing down McCain, which isn't really a very good argument for Obama's legitimacy.

tony hipchest
09-30-2008, 10:31 AM
no wonder the lipstick for the bulldog has been replaced by a muzzle.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080930/ap_on_el_pr/palin_pakistan;_ylt=AnAMGe65qOvB2Av6SZGSPkVh24cA

WASHINGTON - Gov. Sarah Palin said Monday that her comment about attacking terrorist targets in Pakistan, which appeared to contradict the position of GOP presidential nominee John McCain, was a response to a "gotcha" question from a voter.

"This was a voter, a constituent, hollering out a question from across an area asking, 'What are you gonna do about Pakistan? You better have an answer to Pakistan.' I said we're gonna do what we have to do to protect the United States of America," Palin told the "CBS Evening News" in an interview about her exchange with a voter Saturday at a Philadelphia restaurant.

The Republican vice presidential candidate's answer was similar to Democratic nominee Barack Obama's statement that he would support sending U.S. troops into Pakistan to attack high-value targets like Osama bin Laden and other top al-Qaida leaders who are thought to be hiding in tribal areas along the Pakistan-Afghanistan border.

"If that's what we have to do stop the terrorists from coming any further in, absolutely, we should," Palin told the voter during the exchange, which was captured on video.

Except McCain chided Obama during Friday's presidential debate for saying publicly that he supports striking terrorist targets inside Pakistan if the Pakistani government is unable or unwilling to do so.


oh man. the rest of the article is hilarious, where mccain handles her with kid gloves and blames the person asking her the question, and especially this gem....

Asked about the criticism, including from some conservatives, about her readiness for high office, Palin said: "Not only am I ready but willing and able to serve as vice president with Sen. McCain if Americans so bless us and privilege us with the opportunity of serving them," she said, "Ready with my executive experience as a city mayor and manager, as a governor, as a commissioner, a regulator of oil and gas."

:toofunny: :toofunny: :toofunny:

if this isnt enough of a reason (amongst the multitude of others) to not vote for mccain, i dont know what is. he's having to handle her with kid gloves and i bet she didnt even watch her daddy on the debates last friday to get familiar with a few of his stances. :chuckle:

Mosca
09-30-2008, 10:32 AM
Obama is the 2008 Democratic nominee because of his 2004 speech for Kerry. It's a direct 1 to 1 correlation. He doesn't give that speech, and he's not the candidate this year.

And the Pinto thing just is what it is. I've seen the 3 or 4 of you make some REAL reaches to defend Obama, and, again, like I said, I get that. He's your nominee, so you are doing your best to make him what he's clearly not, which is a qualified presidential candidate. There have even been, on occasion, a couple points scored here and there, but, really, for the most part, you guys build Obama up by tearing down McCain, which isn't really a very good argument for Obama's legitimacy.

I think that some of you have made some serious stretches to defend Palin; regardless of what stretches people have made to defend Obama, he is clearly more ready to lead the country than Palin might be, should she be called upon to do so. Obama may be a rookie, but he is at least at that level; if not ready NOW, and I'm not going to argue for or against that, he is clearly capable of being ready at some time, your agreement or disagreement with his policies notwithstanding. Palin, on the other hand, has clearly not given any deep thought to ANY national or international issue in her entire life, as witnessed by every single time she has been interviewed, regardless of the political sway of the interviewer.

I may disagree with McCain, but I don't think him incapable of leading. I'm not entirely comfortable with Obama's experience, but I know that he at least understands the issues, and that he has been able to put a really good team around him; being able to find trusted advisers is as much as requirement for the job as the ability to make tough decisions (witness Bush 2, who has strong decision making ability but was tone-deaf on picking people to advise him). (My biggest beef with McCain is actually that I don't think he is willing to listen to his advisers, and I don't entirely trust his judgment.)

Obama is inexperienced, but IMO he isn't out of his depth. IMO Palin is more out of her depth than even Jimmy Carter was.

And with all due respect, remember that that is my opinion.

revefsreleets
09-30-2008, 10:40 AM
I see, I see...now both of you are building up Obama by knocking down.........Sarah Palin?

Out of the frying pan and into the old fire.

It is interesting that, no matter what, it keeps coming back to Palin v Obama.

tony hipchest
09-30-2008, 10:45 AM
I see, I see...now both of you are building up Obama by knocking down.........Sarah Palin?

Out of the frying pan and into the old fire.

It is interesting that, no matter what, it keeps coming back to Palin v Obama.what you so conviniently choose to ignore, is that its the failed policies of the republican party that knocks mccain down.

and to get you back on the actual topic of this thread, it is palin repeatedly putting her foot in her mouth, what a dunce she is and how that directly impacts MY faith in mccains decision making process.

but you keep building palin up and pleading that we atleast give her a chance in the debates before ripping her. its kinda cute.

revefsreleets
09-30-2008, 10:51 AM
I'm just waiting to see how she does in the debate. She's not my first choice, and I have said so many times. But she is about on equal footing with Obama, which is interesting.

If McCain backed his party 97% of the time like Obama did his, instead of the 70% that he ACTUALLY has, then your argument about McCain being more of the same would have some merit. It does not.

And, AGAIN, it's a broken record with you guys. It's all about knocking the other guy down to build your side up...clearly indicative of a candidate who just doesn't have anything of his own to actually stand on. We go round and round and round, but it's the same thing over and over.

And it's not just here...I get this same stuff from all my friends who are Democrats. They're stuck with this guy, feel vaguely frustrated about it, but have no real place to go with it but to attack McCain and now Palin.

Mosca
09-30-2008, 10:56 AM
I see, I see...now both of you are building up Obama by knocking down.........Sarah Palin?

Out of the frying pan and into the old fire.

It is interesting that, no matter what, it keeps coming back to Palin v Obama.

No, I didn't read most of this thread, and I am only addressing your post; you deflected the issue of Palin's unsuitability by redirecting and sidetracking the topic to how others stretch to defend Obama. I am showing how that isn't really a valid comparison. As to the reasons I believe it so, read my post; I specifically do not defend Obama, and go to pains to separate my feelings about the two main candidates from discussion of Palin.

Mosca
09-30-2008, 10:58 AM
I'm just waiting to see how she does in the debate. She's not my first choice, and I have said so many times. But she is about on equal footing with Obama, which is interesting.

I agree that I am waiting to see how she does in the debate. I disagree that she is on equal footing with Obama. But, that's why they're having the debates, isn't it? To find out. I guess we'll see.

tony hipchest
09-30-2008, 11:00 AM
If McCain backed his party 97% of the time like Obama did his, instead of the 70% that he ACTUALLY has, then your argument about McCain being more of the same would have some merit. It does not.

.hogwash. its the failed policies of the republic party that tear him down.

if he really was this maverick, and such an ambassador for change, and reaching across the aisle, and good for the country, he woulda chosen leiberman as a running mate.

instead he picked the uber conservative who probably thinks both bush's are the best presidents ever.

you keep saying i am "stuck" with obama.

when in all actuallity, as an american, i am "stuck" with obama AND mccain. you should know better than to suggest i can only vote for a democrat. mccain blew it.

against obama no less. :laughing:

revefsreleets
09-30-2008, 11:06 AM
Why would McCain pick Lieberman? They only agree on one plank on an entire platform (Iraq). He's accused of pandering by selecting Palin, but it would be 1000X worse if he picked Joe.

You are a Democrat. Obama is your parties candidate. You yourself know he's not remotely the best or most equipped guy for the job, but yet you still "defend him" (read, tear down the other guy in attempt to bolster yours).

You've been sold a lemon, and you are taking it out on everybody else now...by mocking McCain.

tony hipchest
09-30-2008, 11:14 AM
You've been sold a lemon, and you are taking it out on everybody else now...by mocking McCain.

:chuckle: c'mon revs. now youre insinuating that only you can mock a candidate cause your opinion is so supreme. it just doesnt work that way though...

i do know he's better equipped than mccain. the selection of palin proves it.

but i know, she is your party, and you are stuck with her on the ticket, so now you hunker down in the foxhole... :blah:

Mosca
09-30-2008, 11:14 AM
Why would McCain pick Lieberman? They only agree on one plank on an entire platform (Iraq). He's accused of pandering by selecting Palin, but it would be 1000X worse if he picked Joe.

You are a Democrat. Obama is your parties candidate. You yourself know he's not remotely the best or most equipped guy for the job, but yet you still "defend him" (read, tear down the other guy in attempt to bolster yours).

You've been sold a lemon, and you are taking it out on everybody else now...

As an aside,

I've thought a lot about this, whether Clinton (whom I presume you are speaking of) is actually a better candidate than Obama. Although Clinton the person might be better, Obama the organization is better. Clinton was spotted a 21 point lead (to use a football analogy) and couldn't win. I would be worried that her ears are too closed, that her vision was limited. She's a great politician, but is she a leader, when she couldn't beat Barack Obama?

I understand that that analysis might also mean that he is the default candidate, but whatever. There it is, y'know? He wasn't appointed. We listened to the candidates and preferred this one. Just like the Republicans did, and now they're both out there, warts and smiles for all to see. Pick one.

revefsreleets
09-30-2008, 11:18 AM
:chuckle: c'mon revs. now youre insinuating that only you can mock a candidate cause your opinion is so supreme. it just doesnt work that way though...

i do know he's better equipped than mccain. the selection of palin proves it.

but i know, she is your party, and you are stuck with her on the ticket, so now you hunker down in the foxhole... :blah:

Aha! There it is again. Your defense of Obama? Knocking down McCain via his selection of Veep.

This is TOO easy. You really are a one-trick pony:laughing:

Mosca
09-30-2008, 11:31 AM
Aha! There it is again. Your defense of Obama? Knocking down McCain via his selection of Veep.

This is TOO easy. You really are a one-trick pony:laughing:

But... but... isn't that what this ONE thread is about? There are plenty of other threads about the other candidates, this is just what this one is about.

revefsreleets
09-30-2008, 11:34 AM
But... but... isn't that what this ONE thread is about? There are plenty of other threads about the other candidates, this is just what this one is about.

Technically, I think you're right this time.

Unfortunately, the "defense" is the same no matter what the topic.

cubanstogie
09-30-2008, 11:47 AM
let me pose a question. Do you same people who think Palin should "bow out" think that Bill Clinton should have bowed out after the Lewinsky debacle. Is that who you would trust leading country. A guy who lies, cheats, lies again until caught. It seems you guys(libs) see what you want to see, when you see it. I've said it before, give her a chance to debate. What is the main reason you want to see her gone. Who do u want McCain to choose. I personally wanted Romney at the start, of course I knew next to nothing on Palin.

tony hipchest
09-30-2008, 11:50 AM
Unfortunately, the "defense" is the same no matter what the topic."one trick pony, huh? lol. good stuff. i wouldnt expect anyone who has "joined the party" to defend mccains decision to put palin in washington.

http://www.salon.com/mwt/feature/2008/09/30/palin_pity/

The Sarah Palin pity party
Everyone seems to be oozing sympathy for the fumbling vice-presidential nominee. Please. Cry me a freaking river.

By Rebecca Traister


Sept. 30, 2008 | Is this the week that Democrats and Republicans join hands -- to heap pity on poor Sarah Palin?

At the moment, all signs point to yes, as some strange bedfellows reveal that they have been feeling sorry for the vice-presidential candidate ever since she stopped speaking without the help of a teleprompter. Conservative women like Kathleen Parker and Kathryn Jean Lopez are shuddering with sympathy as they realize that the candidate who thrilled them, just weeks ago, is not in shape for the big game. They're not alone. The New Republic's Christopher Orr feels that Palin has been misused by the team that tapped her. In the New York Times, Judith Warner feels for Sarah, too! And over at the Atlantic, Ta-Nehisi Coates empathizes with intelligence and nuance, making clear that he's not expressing pity. Salon's own Glenn Greenwald watched the Katie Couric interview and "actually felt sorry for Sarah Palin." Even Amy Poehler, impersonating Katie Couric on last week's "Saturday Night Live," makes the joke that Palin's cornered-animal ineptitude makes her "increasingly adorable."

I guess I'm one cold dame, because while Palin provokes many unpleasant emotions in me, I just can't seem to summon pity, affection or remorse.

Don't get me wrong, I'm just like all of the rest of you, part of the bipartisan jumble of viewers that keeps one hand poised above the mute button and the other over my eyes during Palin's disastrous interviews. Like everyone else, I can barely take the waves of embarrassment that come with watching someone do something so badly. Roseanne Barr singing the national anthem, Sophia Coppola acting in "The Godfather: Part III," Sarah Palin talking about Russia -- they all create the same level of eyeball-squinching discomfort.

But just because I'm human, just because I can feel, just because I did say this weekend that I "almost feel sorry for her" doesn't mean, when I consider the situation rationally, that I do. Yes, as a feminist, it sucks -- hard -- to watch a woman, no matter how much I hate her politics, unable to answer questions about her running mate during a television interview. And perhaps it's because this experience pains me so much that I feel not sympathy but biting anger. At her, at John McCain, at the misogynistic political mash that has been made of what was otherwise a groundbreaking year for women in presidential politics.

In her "Poor Sarah" column, Warner writes of the wave of "self-recognition and sympathy [that] washed over" her when she saw a photo of Palin talking to Henry Kissinger. Palin -- as "a woman fully aware that she was out of her league, scared out of her wits, hanging on for dear life" -- apparently reminded Warner of herself. Wow. Putting aside the massively depressing implication that Warner recognizes this attitude because she believes it to be somehow written into the female condition, let's consider that there are any number of women who could have been John McCain's running mate -- from Olympia Snowe to Christine Todd Whitman to Kay Bailey Hutchison to Elizabeth Dole to Condoleezza Rice -- who would not have provoked this reaction. Democrats might well have been repulsed and infuriated by these women's policy positions. But we would not have been sitting around worrying about how scared they looked.

...


Next page: When you stage a train wreck of this magnitude , then I don't feel bad for you

i believe i hit on this point about condi rice about a week ago.

revefsreleets
09-30-2008, 11:54 AM
Again, I have criticized Palin plenty, and certainly feel no pity for her. But I appreciate the attempt at deflection...it's interesting that you are attacking me for defending her, accusing me of being in lockstep when I have called her out on several of her views. Your mounting frustration is showing...

AGAIN, ALL we have here is discrediting McCain, this time through his Veep selection.

There is no meat or merit to your candidate, nothing for him to stand on alone, so you're reduced to this. It's transparent...

Mosca
09-30-2008, 12:03 PM
Technically, I think you're right this time.

Unfortunately, the "defense" is the same no matter what the topic.

Well, you and others keep redirecting it there; the initial post didn't compare her to Obama at all, but all the derailings do, and those sidetrackings prompt rebuttals... which are then countered by, "You're always comparing her to Obama!", when the truth is that the comparisons are started by someone else. I'm perfectly happy to let Palin stand or fall on her own.

Mosca
09-30-2008, 12:08 PM
Again, I have criticized Palin plenty, and certainly feel no pity for her. But I appreciate the attempt at deflection...it's interesting that you are attacking me for defending her, accusing me of being in lockstep when I have called her out on several of her views. Your mounting frustration is showing...

AGAIN, ALL we have here is discrediting McCain, this time through his Veep selection.

There is no meat or merit to your candidate, nothing for him to stand on alone, so you're reduced to this. It's transparent...


I think that it is absolutely proper to discredit McCain for his choice of VP candidate. It is the issue that swung my decision to vote against him. And, yes, sometimes I vote against a candidate rather than for one; I voted against Gore in '00, and I voted against Bush in '04. And I'm voting against McCain this year.

Mosca
09-30-2008, 12:22 PM
The very first mention of Obama in this thread is post #5.... who started the comparison?


Kathleen Parker is definitely a conservative, and I agree with her on several of her positions (but certainly not all). That being said, I don't concur with her on this matter. If Obama is okay to "learn as he goes" why does he get a pass? He DOES have less executive experience than she does, but he HAS had more time to study up on what to do and say, things that make him seem presidential.

I would wait until Palin debates Biden before I made ANY kind of assessment of her abilities. Biden, buy any measure, should squish her like a grape in a debate, but I have a feeling she's a quick study, and will hold her own.

I also expect any truly memorable moments from debates in this election to come from Biden/Palin. They are both the bulldogs of their respective ticket (Hell, Biden's whole role is to attack McCain so Obama can play good cop)

revefsreleets
09-30-2008, 12:31 PM
I started the comparisons between Obama and Plain? Me? I did?

I think that originated a lot higher up than me, and started a long time ago.

Sir...please.

Obama = or < Palin

And I don't care much for Palin, her of the "Humans put saddles on dinosaurs and rode them around". Don't pin her on me...

tony hipchest
09-30-2008, 12:35 PM
let me pose a question. Do you same people who think Palin should "bow out" think that Bill Clinton should have bowed out after the Lewinsky debacle. Is that who you would trust leading country. A guy who lies, cheats, lies again until caught. It seems you guys(libs) see what you want to see, when you see it. I've said it before, give her a chance to debate. What is the main reason you want to see her gone. Who do u want McCain to choose. I personally wanted Romney at the start, of course I knew next to nothing on Palin.i dont think mccain should bow out just for cheating on his wife (i barely even mention it unless its to counter a point/question such as yours) so why would i think clinton shouldve bowed out?

in all honesty its way too late for her to bow out. it would be career suicide, and bring the ticket to its knees.

i just enjoy that even the conservatives are now seeing what was so obvious. i find the hypocricy of the campaign (and mccain supporters) hilarious when they tried to destroy obama with his lack of experince and countered that with their selection of palin.

oh, and ive stated a number of people mccain coulda put on his ticket and possibly won my vote. he picked a freaking cheerleader instead. the selection was a joke and a gimmick, and alot of people besides myself clearly see that.

it makes mccain look like the mike mularkey of politics and thats alot of mularkey i simply aint buying.

thats all.

revefsreleets
09-30-2008, 12:37 PM
I can't wait to see the spin if she cold c ocks ole Joe in the debate Thursday.

Because I'm sure there will be PLENTY of it...

tony hipchest
09-30-2008, 12:43 PM
I started the comparisons between Obama and Plain? Me? I did?

...meh.

you clearly accused me of "deflection" by talking about palin in a thread about palin :hunch:

:screwy:

:coffee:

if the wheels look like theyre falling off the palin waggon, its definitely worthy of note. not everybody is simply gonna ignore it. its the vice presidency of our nation for Gods sake, not something just handed out at doorsteps on halloween.

shame on the mccain camp for thinking they can keep her under wraps and go "trick or treating" for votes.

Mosca
09-30-2008, 01:00 PM
I started the comparisons between Obama and Plain? Me? I did?

In this thread, yes. Evidence above.

Mosca
09-30-2008, 01:03 PM
I can't wait to see the spin if she cold c ocks ole Joe in the debate Thursday.

Because I'm sure there will be PLENTY of it...

The best I can hope for (because I really do want what's best for my country) is that she realizes how bad she has been doing and does an about face, showing that she really does know the issues beyond what she has been fed. But I have my sincere doubts.

Mosca
09-30-2008, 01:06 PM
And, we Dems can't dismiss the possibility that Palin looks horrible... and Biden looks bad, too. He doesn't even have to be as bad as her; if he comes off looking bad, all of a sudden she won't be as much of an issue.

revefsreleets
09-30-2008, 01:10 PM
OBAMA started the comparisons between him and Palin by having as little or less experience than her.

As for me calling attention to the fact that the only defense Obama supporters have is to attack McCain, that's bigger than any one thread. It's ubiquitous.

revefsreleets
09-30-2008, 01:12 PM
And, we Dems can't dismiss the possibility that Palin looks horrible... and Biden looks bad, too. He doesn't even have to be as bad as her; if he comes off looking bad, all of a sudden she won't be as much of an issue.

It's not wild speculation to say that Biden will almost certainly look bad. That's a given. But if she comes out and is quick on her feet, and shows that she IS a quick study, I'll give her props. I'm never going to get over the far religious right thing, though...

stlrtruck
09-30-2008, 03:38 PM
It's not wild speculation to say that Biden will almost certainly look bad. That's a given. But if she comes out and is quick on her feet, and shows that she IS a quick study, I'll give her props. I'm never going to get over the far religious right thing, though...

Just curious as to what you mean by the, "Far religious right thing,"?

revefsreleets
10-01-2008, 08:46 AM
Just curious as to what you mean by the, "Far religious right thing,"?

She is a fundamentalist Christian, meaning she believes in the literal interpretation of the bible, and that comes with all the baggage. She's also a creationist, meaning she really believes that the Earth is only 6,000 years old, we coexisted with dinosaurs, etc, etc...

People who believe that (especially educated people) scare me.

X-Terminator
10-01-2008, 09:44 AM
She is a fundamentalist Christian, meaning she believes in the literal interpretation of the bible, and that comes with all the baggage. She's also a creationist, meaning she really believes that the Earth is only 6,000 years old, we coexisted with dinosaurs, etc, etc...

People who believe that (especially educated people) scare me.

Same here, which is why I'm not a fan of hers either. It won't change my vote because I'm voting for President, not VP, but nevermind her perceived inexperience - I'm just not all that comfortable with someone who believes those things in that position of power and influence.

revefsreleets
10-01-2008, 09:54 AM
She does have one thing going for her...she hasn't attempted to legislate any of her views into law in any capacity so far, so she seems like she's able to seperate the two.

stlrtruck
10-01-2008, 11:18 AM
She is a fundamentalist Christian, meaning she believes in the literal interpretation of the bible, and that comes with all the baggage. She's also a creationist, meaning she really believes that the Earth is only 6,000 years old, we coexisted with dinosaurs, etc, etc...

People who believe that (especially educated people) scare me.

I'll do my best to not hi-jack this thread but if you read the old testament in the book of Job it mentions Behemoths and Leviathons. But it takes just as much faith to believe the bible as it does not to believe it. I just chose to believe it. And I'd rather vote for a Christian than a man who has either errantly or by slip of the tongue mentioned 57 states and muslim faith.

cubanstogie
10-01-2008, 11:55 AM
I'll do my best to not hi-jack this thread but if you read the old testament in the book of Job it mentions Behemoths and Leviathons. But it takes just as much faith to believe the bible as it does not to believe it. I just chose to believe it. And I'd rather vote for a Christian than a man who has either errantly or by slip of the tongue mentioned 57 states and muslim faith.

I agree, it seems some Americans think it is a crime to be a Christian. At least Palin, Bush, Romney to name a few are open about their faith. Libs would rather have a lying cheat getting noggin in the White House than a church goer. I have my doubts about Obama and his Freudian slips about his Muslim faith as well. Its one thing to be Muslim but to hide it is another.

revefsreleets
10-01-2008, 12:28 PM
I'll do my best to not hi-jack this thread but if you read the old testament in the book of Job it mentions Behemoths and Leviathons. But it takes just as much faith to believe the bible as it does not to believe it. I just chose to believe it. And I'd rather vote for a Christian than a man who has either errantly or by slip of the tongue mentioned 57 states and muslim faith.

Nothing wrong with having faith. Nothing wrong with reading the bible. Something very wrong with denying 100% unquestionable facts about the age of this world and the timeline of the events that occured along the way. We did NOT share this planet with Dinosaurs.There is no argument to be made here, and, while opinions are certainly fine to have, I'm no more willing to discuss opinions about humans riding dinosaurs than I am about the Earth being flat.

By the by, if I'm 5' tall and weigh 120 lbs (which is about how big people were back then) and I saw an Elephant, I'd call that a behemoth. A whale would certainly qualify as a Leviathon.

tony hipchest
10-01-2008, 12:37 PM
I agree, it seems some Americans think it is a crime to be a Christian. At least Palin, Bush, Romney to name a few are open about their faith. Libs would rather have a lying cheat getting noggin in the White House than a church goer. I have my doubts about Obama and his Freudian slips about his Muslim faith as well. Its one thing to be Muslim but to hide it is another.libs go to church and worship Christ too. nothing illegal there. it is illegal for extreme right wing conservative Christian priests to molest little boys though. righties would rather have THAT! :wink02: see... thats the problem with your generalizations. it can work both ways.

Leftoverhard
10-01-2008, 12:42 PM
I agree, it seems some Americans think it is a crime to be a Christian. At least Palin, Bush, Romney to name a few are open about their faith. Libs would rather have a lying cheat getting noggin in the White House than a church goer. I have my doubts about Obama and his Freudian slips about his Muslim faith as well. Its one thing to be Muslim but to hide it is another.

First, Barack Obama is not a Muslim. Nevermind the connotations you make with it, that is just an ignorant statment. He's a Christian. End.
Second, what exactly is a lying cheating noggin? Break that down please. And how does being a church goer absolve a politician from your scrutiny?
Third, I don't think "some Americans" think it's a crime to be religious, "some Americans" are just worried, and rightfully so, about the separation of church and state. Religion has changed drastically in this country from the time of forefathers until now. Hey, here's a list of some of those fine Americans and their open views on that subject:


"...I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should 'make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,' thus building a wall of separation between church and State."
- Thomas Jefferson

"I am tolerant of all creeds. Yet if any sect suffered itself to be used for political objects I would meet it by political opposition. In my view church and state should be separate, not only in form, but fact. Religion and politics should not be mingled." Millard Fillmore (1809-1865) 13th U.S. President (Millard Fillmore, address during the 1856 presidential election)

"The Bible is not my book, nor Christianity my profession."
- Abraham Lincoln

"Shake off all the fears of servile prejudices, under which weak minds are servilely crouched. Fix reason firmly in her seat, and call on her tribunal for every fact, every opinion. Question with boldness even the existence of a God; because, if there be one, he must more approve of the homage of reason than that of blindfolded fear."
- Thomas Jefferson

"The way to see by faith is to shut the eye of reason."
- Benjamin Franklin

"This would be the best of all possible worlds, if there were no religion in it."
- John Adams


"Lighthouses are more helpful than churches."
- Benjamin Franklin


"Religious bondage shackles and debilitates the mind and unfits it for every noble enterprise."
- James Madison


"Ecclesiastical establishments tend to great ignorance and corruption, all of which facilitate the execution of mischievous projects."
- James Madison


"The purpose of separation of church and state is to keep forever from these shores the ceaseless strife that has soaked the soil of Europe in blood for centuries."
- James Madison


"In every country and in every age, the priest has been hostile to liberty. He is always in alliance with the despot.... they have perverted the purest religion ever preached to man into mystery and jargon, unintelligible to all mankind, and therefore the safer engine for their purpose."
- Thomas Jefferson


"In the affairs of the world, men are saved, not by faith, but by the lack of it."
- Benjamin Franklin


"If we look back into history for the character of the present sects in Christianity, we shall find few that have not in their turns been persecutors, and complainers of persecution. The primitive Christians thought persecution extremely wrong in the Pagans, but practiced it on one another. The first Protestants of the Church of England blamed persecution in the Romish Church, but practiced it upon the Puritans. They found it wrong in Bishops, but fell into the practice themselves both here (England) and in New England."
- Benjamin Franklin


"Of all the tyrannies that affect mankind, tyranny of religion is the worst."
- Thomas Paine


"I do not believe in the creed professed by the Jewish Church, by the Roman Church, by the Greek Church, by the Turkish Church, by the Protestant Church, nor by any Church that I know of. My own mind is my own Church. Each of those churches accuse the other of unbelief; and for my own part, I disbelieve them all."
- Thomas Paine


"All national institutions of churches, whether Jewish, Christian or Turkish, appear to me no other than human inventions, set up to terrify and enslave mankind, and monopolize power and profit."
- Thomas Paine


"The Bible is not my book, nor Christianity my profession."
- Abraham Lincoln


"If my neighbor believes in twenty gods or no gods, it does not pick my pocket or break my leg and therefore it's no harm to me."
- Thomas Jefferson

revefsreleets
10-01-2008, 12:47 PM
We've run over this ground in other fairly recent threads (Secularism in America).

Let's get THIS straight. McCain is not a particularly pious or religious man. It happens to be one of the things I like about him as a candidate. There is a zero chance that we continue our slow move into a Theocracy under McCain. Palin? Who knows, but as is pretty clear from her record, she doesn't seem to have an agenda of forcing her religious views on others...it's probably a laissez faire thing that has some roots in being from Alaska, or at least spending a lot of time there.

stlrtruck
10-01-2008, 12:50 PM
libs go to church and worship Christ too. nothing illegal there. it is illegal for extreme right wing conservative Christian priests to molest little boys though. righties would rather have THAT! :wink02: see... thats the problem with your generalizations. it can work both ways.

That's the problem with religion, it doesn't work. Anyone who has studied Christ would know that Christ was never about religion but instead he was about relationship.

But you're right Tony, it goes both ways. People of the cloth come out and speak against many things only to have their own skeletons in the closet that are 10x worse than what they were "preaching" against!!

cubanstogie
10-01-2008, 12:53 PM
First, Barack Obama is not a Muslim. Nevermind the connotations you make with it, that is just an ignorant statment. He's a Christian. End.
Second, what exactly is a lying cheating noggin? Break that down please. And how does being a church goer absolve a politician from your scrutiny?
Third, I don't think "some Americans" think it's a crime to be religious, "some Americans" are just worried, and rightfully so, about the separation of church and state. Religion has changed drastically in this country from the time of forefathers until now. Hey, here's a list of some of those fine Americans and their open views on that subject:


"...I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should 'make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,' thus building a wall of separation between church and State."
- Thomas Jefferson

"I am tolerant of all creeds. Yet if any sect suffered itself to be used for political objects I would meet it by political opposition. In my view church and state should be separate, not only in form, but fact. Religion and politics should not be mingled." Millard Fillmore (1809-1865) 13th U.S. President (Millard Fillmore, address during the 1856 presidential election)

"The Bible is not my book, nor Christianity my profession."
- Abraham Lincoln

"Shake off all the fears of servile prejudices, under which weak minds are servilely crouched. Fix reason firmly in her seat, and call on her tribunal for every fact, every opinion. Question with boldness even the existence of a God; because, if there be one, he must more approve of the homage of reason than that of blindfolded fear."
- Thomas Jefferson

"The way to see by faith is to shut the eye of reason."
- Benjamin Franklin

"This would be the best of all possible worlds, if there were no religion in it."
- John Adams


"Lighthouses are more helpful than churches."
- Benjamin Franklin


"Religious bondage shackles and debilitates the mind and unfits it for every noble enterprise."
- James Madison


"Ecclesiastical establishments tend to great ignorance and corruption, all of which facilitate the execution of mischievous projects."
- James Madison


"The purpose of separation of church and state is to keep forever from these shores the ceaseless strife that has soaked the soil of Europe in blood for centuries."
- James Madison


"In every country and in every age, the priest has been hostile to liberty. He is always in alliance with the despot.... they have perverted the purest religion ever preached to man into mystery and jargon, unintelligible to all mankind, and therefore the safer engine for their purpose."
- Thomas Jefferson


"In the affairs of the world, men are saved, not by faith, but by the lack of it."
- Benjamin Franklin


"If we look back into history for the character of the present sects in Christianity, we shall find few that have not in their turns been persecutors, and complainers of persecution. The primitive Christians thought persecution extremely wrong in the Pagans, but practiced it on one another. The first Protestants of the Church of England blamed persecution in the Romish Church, but practiced it upon the Puritans. They found it wrong in Bishops, but fell into the practice themselves both here (England) and in New England."
- Benjamin Franklin


"Of all the tyrannies that affect mankind, tyranny of religion is the worst."
- Thomas Paine


"I do not believe in the creed professed by the Jewish Church, by the Roman Church, by the Greek Church, by the Turkish Church, by the Protestant Church, nor by any Church that I know of. My own mind is my own Church. Each of those churches accuse the other of unbelief; and for my own part, I disbelieve them all."
- Thomas Paine


"All national institutions of churches, whether Jewish, Christian or Turkish, appear to me no other than human inventions, set up to terrify and enslave mankind, and monopolize power and profit."
- Thomas Paine


"The Bible is not my book, nor Christianity my profession."
- Abraham Lincoln


"If my neighbor believes in twenty gods or no gods, it does not pick my pocket or break my leg and therefore it's no harm to me."
- Thomas Jefferson

noggin is slang fore head, I was referring to Slick Willie. A lying cheat getting head in whitehouse. I stated libs can allow that, but seem to have problems with Bush and his christianity, I have heard people say that having a mormon(Romney) in white house scares them, and there have been recent attacks on Palin due to her religious beliefs. I don't get it. The morals in this country have gone to shiit. Of course like Tony stated the Catholic church is not exempt from despicable behavior as well. Those priests should be in prison for 30 years getting molested by big thugs.
A church goer isn't exempt from scrutiny, nor is an atheist. My issue is with Obama and the honesty. He has had slip ups which point to Muslim faith yet he denies. I don't know what to believe.
I don't even know what denomination Bill and Hillary are, or Kerry, Edwards etc. Doesnt matter to me. My point was it seems the libs are always bashing christians and scared when one is in the White house. I obviously don't mean all libs, but the fact it is brought up frequently is tiring.

stlrtruck
10-01-2008, 01:03 PM
I'd rather have a person who pronounces their faith in the general public working in the white house than one who presents himself/herself as if they have none. As far as McCain, I know not where his faith in Christ lies and it's not for my judgement on any man to determine or criticize such a relationship.

However, there have been many mis-interpretations of what our forefathers were stating when they wrote our constitution and amendments.

First, it was freedom of religion, not freedom from religion.

Second, separation for church and state had to do with a state run church.

Third, we can all go round and round on these issues and bring up various quotes, re-sorted facts, and lump them together with our own faith. It won't make a bit of difference in what the politicians continue to do in Washington DC.

While I'd love to see more Christian politicians going to their knees in prayer before pressing a button on a vote, it probably won't happen due to the love of money.

I would agree with Stoogie in that the morals, ethics, and standards for individuals in this country have gone to shite! CEOs, politicians, elected officals, etc, have all turned a blind eye in order to stuff their pockets. They've been more worried about voting on a pay raise than they have fixing what's wrong with America!!

Now we can all list our thoughts on what's wrong with America. I'm sure eventually you'd get two positions. 1) God has been excluded from America 2) People are out there for themselves and have not been taught how to live together.

In my eyes, 1 and 2 go hand and hand. People are out for themselves because they no longer live by the directions that God gave us for a good life! But that's just me.

I feel that Palin's openness about her faith brings her down to a human level and that she's not above anyone and even with all her flaws, she knows that she can do nothing without Christ.

tony hipchest
10-01-2008, 02:10 PM
Obama = or < Palinjust remember, while unqualified obama was easilly holding his own vs. champion mccain in the debates, sarah was stumblin', bumblin', fumblin' with softball questions from katie freaking couric.

I can't wait to see the spin if she cold c ocks ole Joe in the debate Thursday.

Because I'm sure there will be PLENTY of it...there will be no "clock cleaning" or "cold c0cking", unless biden chooses to go that route. (i doubt he will).

how will the debates play out? since nobody in the lower 48 even know her its best to ask someone who does-

What it's like to debate Sarah Palin

http://news.yahoo.com/s/csm/20081001/cm_csm/yseaquist

Anchorage, Alaska - When he faces off against Sarah Palin Thursday night, Joe Biden will have his hands full.

I should know. I've debated Governor Palin more than two dozen times. And she's a master, not of facts, figures, or insightful policy recommendations, but at the fine art of the nonanswer, the glittering generality. Against such charms there is little Senator Biden, or anyone, can do.

On paper, of course, the debate appears to be a mismatch.

In 2000, Palin was the mayor of an Alaskan town of 5,500 people, while Biden was serving his 28th year as a United States senator. Her major public policy concern was building a local ice rink and sports center. His major public policy concern was the State Department's decision to grant an export license to allow sales of heavy-lift helicopters to Turkey, during tense UN-sponsored Cyprus peace talks.

On paper, the difference in experience on both domestic and foreign policy is like the difference between shooting a bullet and throwing a bullet. Unfortunately for Biden, if recent history is an indicator, experience or a grasp of the issues won't matter when it comes to debating Palin.

On April 17, 2006, Palin and I participated in a debate at the University of Alaska in Fairbanks on agriculture issues. The next day, the Fairbanks Daily News Miner published this excerpt:

"Andrew Halcro, a declared independent candidate from Anchorage, came armed with statistics on agricultural productivity. Sarah Palin, a Republican from Wasilla, said the Matanuska Valley provides a positive example for other communities interested in agriculture to study."

On April 18, 2006, Palin and I sat together in a hotel coffee shop comparing campaign trail notes. As we talked about the debates, Palin made a comment that highlights the phenomenon that Biden is up against.

"Andrew, I watch you at these debates with no notes, no papers, and yet when asked questions, you spout off facts, figures, and policies, and I'm amazed. But then I look out into the audience and I ask myself, 'Does any of this really matter?' " Palin said. :wtf:

While policy wonks such as Biden might cringe, it seemed to me that Palin was simply vocalizing her strength without realizing it. During the campaign, Palin's knowledge on public policy issues never matured – because it didn't have to. Her ability to fill the debate halls with her presence and her gift of the glittering generality made it possible for her to rely on populism instead of policy.

Palin is a master of the nonanswer. She can turn a 60-second response to a query about her specific solutions to healthcare challenges into a folksy story about how she's met people on the campaign trail who face healthcare challenges. All without uttering a word about her public-policy solutions to healthcare challenges.

In one debate, a moderator asked the candidates to name a bill the legislature had recently passed that we didn't like. I named one. Democratic candidate Tony Knowles named one. But Sarah Palin instead used her allotted time to criticize the incumbent governor, Frank Murkowski. Asked to name a bill we did like, the same pattern emerged: Palin didn't name a bill.

And when she does answer the actual question asked, she has a canny ability to connect with the audience on a personal level. For example, asked to name a major issue that had been ignored during the campaign, I discussed the health of local communities, Mr. Knowles talked about affordable healthcare, and Palin talked about ... the need to protect hunting and fishing rights.

So what does that mean for Biden? With shorter question-and-answer times and limited interaction between the two, he should simply ignore Palin in a respectful manner on the stage and answer the questions as though he were alone. Any attempt to flex his public-policy knowledge and show Palin is not ready for prime time will inevitably cast him in the role of the bully.

On the other side of the stage, if Palin is to be successful, she needs to do what she does best: fill the room with her presence and stick to the scripted sound bites.

• Andrew Halcro served two terms as a Republican member of the Alaska State House of Representatives. He ran for governor as an Independent in 2006, debating Sarah Palin more than two dozen times. He blogs at www.andrewhalcro.com


so thats how this debate will play out. you will see some bulldog attacks on biden and obama, to try to get him off track. we will see the same scripted soundbites shes been spewing at her 17 public appearances (really? only 17? most of which she were at johns side? thats it?) and if pressed on the issues, we will see her sing the company line and say "i stand with john on that", or "you will see in november"

:yawn:

tony hipchest
10-01-2008, 02:11 PM
as for plenty of spin, there is no bigger spin machine on this planet than mrs. palin. "bridge to nowhere", "planes on e-bay", and i can wait to see her talk about her foreign policy credentials which have been so shredded, her dog handelers have been forced to say she has " a full breadth of international experience that any governor would have who is engaged with the world on trade, on infrastructure issues,".

what a freaking joke. to compare to the likes of bill richardson (or even a gov of a real state such as TX, NY, CA) is an insult to not only the 300 million americans now, but all those who have lived and died before us. :chuckle:

she flat out lied about trade negotiations with russia.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20081001/ap_on_el_pr/palin_foreign_policy

Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin, who touts her state's proximity to Russia as part of her foreign policy experience, has not met with Russian leaders or delegations, negotiated any Russian issues or visited the country, according to an Associated Press review of records from the governor's office.

In an interview last week with CBS News anchor Katie Couric, Palin suggested that her contact was more than just awareness of Russia's nearness. When Couric asked Palin if she'd "ever been involved with any negotiations, for example, with the Russians," the governor replied, "We have trade missions back and forth."

But Steve Smirnoff, the Russian Federation's honorary consul in Anchorage, said Palin never accepted his invitation to open a dialogue with Alaska's neighbor.

When Palin took office in December 2006, Smirnoff says, he sent her a letter suggesting "she could be instrumental in reviving relationships between Alaska and Russia, and the rest of the world."

Smirnoff said he'd met Palin years before, when they both worked on then-Gov. Frank Murkowski's campaign. Smirnoff had hoped for some rapport, but "I never received a response," he said. "I don't know if it was taken to heart or thrown in the trash basket."


as for her protecting our air space, military confirms russians havent flown in alaskas airspace for years.

stlrtruck
10-01-2008, 02:24 PM
A LEVIATHAN as described in book of JOB chapter 41 (New King James Version):

1 “Can you draw out Leviathan with a hook,
Or snare his tongue with a line which you lower?

2 Can you put a reed through his nose,
Or pierce his jaw with a hook?

3 Will he make many supplications to you?
Will he speak softly to you?

4 Will he make a covenant with you?
Will you take him as a servant forever?

5 Will you play with him as with a bird,
Or will you leash him for your maidens?

6 Will your companions make a banquet of him?
Will they apportion him among the merchants?

7 Can you fill his skin with harpoons,
Or his head with fishing spears?

8 Lay your hand on him;
Remember the battle—
Never do it again!

9 Indeed, any hope of overcoming him is false;
Shall one not be overwhelmed at the sight of him?

10 No one is so fierce that he would dare stir him up.
Who then is able to stand against Me?

11 Who has preceded Me, that I should pay him?
Everything under heaven is Mine.

12 “I will not conceal[c] his limbs,
His mighty power, or his graceful proportions.

13 Who can remove his outer coat?
Who can approach him with a double bridle?

14 Who can open the doors of his face,
With his terrible teeth all around?

15 His rows of scales are his pride,
Shut up tightly as with a seal;

16 One is so near another
That no air can come between them;

17 They are joined one to another,
They stick together and cannot be parted.

18 His sneezings flash forth light,
And his eyes are like the eyelids of the morning.

19 Out of his mouth go burning lights;
Sparks of fire shoot out.

20 Smoke goes out of his nostrils,
As from a boiling pot and burning rushes.

21 His breath kindles coals,
And a flame goes out of his mouth.

22 Strength dwells in his neck,
And sorrow dances before him.

23 The folds of his flesh are joined together;
They are firm on him and cannot be moved.

24 His heart is as hard as stone,
Even as hard as the lower millstone.

25 When he raises himself up, the mighty are afraid;
Because of his crashings they are beside[d] themselves.

26 Though the sword reaches him, it cannot avail;
Nor does spear, dart, or javelin.

27 He regards iron as straw,
And bronze as rotten wood.

28 The arrow cannot make him flee;
Slingstones become like stubble to him.

29 Darts are regarded as straw;
He laughs at the threat of javelins.

30 His undersides are like sharp potsherds;
He spreads pointed marks in the mire.

31 He makes the deep boil like a pot;
He makes the sea like a pot of ointment.

32 He leaves a shining wake behind him;
One would think the deep had white hair.

33 On earth there is nothing like him,
Which is made without fear.

34 He beholds every high thing;
He is king over all the children of pride.”

A BEHEMOTH as described in the book of JOB, chapter 40 (New King James Version)

15 “Look now at the behemoth,[a] which I made along with you;
He eats grass like an ox.

16 See now, his strength is in his hips,
And his power is in his stomach muscles.

17 He moves his tail like a cedar;
The sinews of his thighs are tightly knit.

18 His bones are like beams of bronze,
His ribs like bars of iron.

19 He is the first of the ways of God;
Only He who made him can bring near His sword.

20 Surely the mountains yield food for him,
And all the beasts of the field play there.

21 He lies under the lotus trees,
In a covert of reeds and marsh.

22 The lotus trees cover him with their shade;
The willows by the brook surround him.

23 Indeed the river may rage,
Yet he is not disturbed;
He is confident, though the Jordan gushes into his mouth,

24 Though he takes it in his eyes,
Or one pierces his nose with a snare.

None of those descriptions sounds like a whale or a elephant for that matter. And the only reason I post those descriptions here is that I find it settling that a politician, new on the scene, has a faith that the book upon which she takes an oath is the beginning and end of all discussions. IMHO, what she is saying is that all things are for God's good and that God's plan can not be thwarted by the actions of man. I'd rather have that person of faith in the office than a person who claims to speak of religious unity, acceptance for all, etc. and the same person who slips up and makes two untrustworthy comments about 57 states and "my muslim faith" which I wish the reporter wouldn't have corrected him - to wait and see how far down the line it would have gone.

Here's how I see this election:

1) McCain - a senator with any years of experience, cheated on and subsequently divorced his wife, POW, looking to only be President for 4 years
Palin - a former mayor and current governor of Alaska has some experience and accountability to signing laws, inexperienced in big government

2) Obama - a senator with few years experience, voted present more than anything else, was a member of a church with questionable Christian doctrine, has made slips of 57 states and "my muslim faith"
Biden - couldn't tell you much about this guy

They both have good thoughts on the issues and I was even impressed with Obama acknowledging McCain's views the other night during the debate. But just because Obama may be a smooth talker and can talk circles around people doesn't make him a good leader - imho it makes him a good deceiver!!

Palin shouldn't bow out, she should bow up!!!

stlrtruck
10-01-2008, 02:31 PM
just remember, while unqualified obama was easilly holding his own vs. champion mccain in the debates, sarah was stumblin', bumblin', fumblin' with softball questions from katie freaking couric.

there will be no "clock cleaning" or "cold c0cking", unless biden chooses to go that route. (i doubt he will).

how will the debates play out? since nobody in the lower 48 even know her its best to ask someone who does-

so thats how this debate will play out. you will see some bulldog attacks on biden and obama, to try to get him off track. we will see the same scripted soundbites shes been spewing at her 17 public appearances (really? only 17? most of which she were at johns side? thats it?) and if pressed on the issues, we will see her sing the company line and say "i stand with john on that", or "you will see in november"

:yawn:

I will admit (as I briefly stated in my previous post) that I was impressed with Obama. He made several concessions to McCain's statements and was very polite (for lack of better phrase) when McCain spoke. However, there's something about him that makes me weary.

As for Palin and Biden, I'm waiting to watch this debate. I will be interested to see if Palin has a "non-answer" as it reads in the quoted article or if she's been able to "catch up" on current affairs. As for Biden, because I don't know much about him, I'm really looking forward to see what type of man he is...I think this debate holds more water than the one that McCain and Obama had last week.

revefsreleets
10-01-2008, 04:53 PM
A) (For Strlrtruck) Do YOU believe that humans and dinosaurs roamed the Earth together?
B) (For Tony) Could you find a LESS credible source to quote than the sour grapes opponent who clearly LOST the election (and, by extension, almost certainly the debates)?

C'mon. All you posts about McCain/Palin are almost filled with an undertone of poison, like you really hate them. Pretending that only McCain is twisting facts in his campaign ads? Really? ONLY McCain? Factcheck is finding about an equal amount of bullshit spewing from both camps.

tony hipchest
10-01-2008, 05:01 PM
B) it was actually a flattering article from 1 of her opponents noting her positive characteristics. plus that source is more credible than anything you can offer, right?


wall street journal online ran pretty much the same article not from 1st person account, (but from non biassed outsiders observations).

poison? lol. how can the simple truth be "sour grapes"?

have you ever debated w/ sarah?

Preacher
10-01-2008, 05:13 PM
A) (For Strlrtruck) Do YOU believe that humans and dinosaurs roamed the Earth together?
B) (For Tony) Could you find a LESS credible source to quote than the sour grapes opponent who clearly LOST the election (and, by extension, almost certainly the debates)?

C'mon. All you posts about McCain/Palin are almost filled with an undertone of poison, like you really hate them. Pretending that only McCain is twisting facts in his campaign ads? Really? ONLY McCain? Factcheck is finding about an equal amount of bullshit spewing from both camps.

Ding ding ding.

We have a winner.

Texasteel
10-01-2008, 08:10 PM
Palin will finally get a chance to show what she really is in the debates, if she can get by that Obama cheerleader that will be the fair and unbiased moderator.
I hope she make the best of it.

TSDMedic
10-01-2008, 09:20 PM
Palin is going to kick the crap out of Biden! She is a mother...and all of us females know how stubborn mothers are when they want something!:wink02:

She is a hard working female who obviously doesn't rely on her looks alone to succeed in life! If she did rely on her looks I am sure we would have seen her in Playboy by now, like every other female in the free world who wants to get ahead in life with their bodies instead of their brains!

Palin is an inspiration to all of us females out here who use our brains, not our bodies to get ahead!

You rock Sarah Palin!!!!

stlrtruck
10-02-2008, 08:44 AM
A) (For Strlrtruck) Do YOU believe that humans and dinosaurs roamed the Earth together?

C'mon. All you posts about McCain/Palin are almost filled with an undertone of poison, like you really hate them. Pretending that only McCain is twisting facts in his campaign ads? Really? ONLY McCain? Factcheck is finding about an equal amount of bullshit spewing from both camps.

Yes, I do. The things I'm learning in my Men's Bible Study as well as my own reading of the bible are completely amazing. And I do have a college degree. The difference is that my faith is in God's word.

It takes faith in either belief. Too believe that the earth is 6 million years old or only a few thousand years old takes the same faith.

Please tell me, how does my belief in that scare you (as you previously mentioned)?

But your last point has more truth than anything else. Both sides have spewed forth their own "spin" on things from the other camp.

revefsreleets
10-02-2008, 09:49 AM
Sorry, dude...anybody who looks at direct scientific fact and chooses to believe fairy tales is not a person I can continue to carry on a serious conversation with. If you deny one set of scientific facts, where does it end? THAT truly scares me...

Tony, this is ridiculous. You are taking 3rd person sour grapes and spinning it up into gospel truth (perhaps thats a particularly bad analogy given my last paragraph). Why can't you just WAIT UNTIL THIS DEBATE before you bash her debatng acumen? Have YOU debated her? Have you SEEN her debate. This is Occam's Razor...the simplest solution is almost always the correct one, and the correct solution here is to actually see her debate before spitefully ripping her to shreds based on heresay and biased op/ed pieces.

Vis
10-02-2008, 09:56 AM
Nobody lies and calls her a double secret Muslim.

revefsreleets
10-02-2008, 10:03 AM
Yes, I do. The things I'm learning in my Men's Bible Study as well as my own reading of the bible are completely amazing. And I do have a college degree. The difference is that my faith is in God's word.

It takes faith in either belief. Too believe that the earth is 6 million years old or only a few thousand years old takes the same faith.

Please tell me, how does my belief in that scare you (as you previously mentioned)?

But your last point has more truth than anything else. Both sides have spewed forth their own "spin" on things from the other camp.

SCARY! It does not take faith to believe in scientific fact. You are denying things that are known based on dogma and indoctrination, and it's just a scary scary proposition to me. If you deny one set of facts, where does it end? Sorry man, but where you've gone I cannot follow.

And, Tony, c'mon now...you're calling that attack flattering? You are posting biased op/ed pieces and calling it credible evidence that she can't debate, yet have YOU ever debated Sarah Palin? Have you ever seen her debate?

This is Occam's Razor: The simplest solution is the best. Let's all watch and see how she does before she gets viciously ripped to shreds based on conjecture and spiteful rhetoric from her defeated past opponents.

stlrtruck
10-02-2008, 10:24 AM
SCARY! It does not take faith to believe in scientific fact. You are denying things that are known based on dogma and indoctrination, and it's just a scary scary proposition to me. If you deny one set of facts, where does it end? Sorry man, but where you've gone I cannot follow.

The thing is I've never asked you to follow me. I'll state what I believe the truth based on God's word, if you choose to open yourself up to His word and wish to do something about it, that's between you and Him. I have no problem setting so-called scientific "fact" aside. Knowing that even scientific methods are flawed and can be utilized to create falsified truths.

And how do you consider the bible to be a "fairy tale"? There is proof that Jesus Christ walked the earth, there is testimony that he healed people, there is proof that he was crucified, and there is evidence today of his uncompromising love for all mankind. If you think that's a fairy tale, then you obviously haven't read many disney books lately.

It reminds me of this joke:
One day a scientist was talking to God and told Him that we didn't need him anymore that scientist have found a way to create humans from dirt. God listened and then asked the scientist to prove it.
The scientist begins to gather the amount of dirt to create a human. God stops him and says, "Get your own dirt!"

While I understand your desire to base your discussion on those scientific facts I find some of them to be flawed and abused. Case in point, Global Warming - there are two groups of scientists, one telling us it's happening and one telling us it's not (which one is the truth).

But if my faith in God's word makes me less credible in your eyes than I'm sorry you feel that way, it does not deminish my belief in God's Word nor my faith in His return.

As far as it taking faith in believing in science, I think you are wrong. But I won't dive into the discussion with you. I'll just agree to disagree and move on.

But I digress, as I stated before, when a politician is this forth coming with their faith in Jesus Christ, it brings a sense of hope to me. Palin, imho, is the closest candidate I've seen in a long time that resembles the actual common folk. The last time I remember a candidate this "common" was Gary Hart back in the 80's. And unfortunately his past caught up with him during the campaigning. I can only pray that it doesn't happen to Palin and it causes problems in the campaign for McCain and her.

revefsreleets
10-02-2008, 10:41 AM
Flat Earth? Phrenology? Leeching? Universe revolving around the Earth? Once you deny fact, there is no safety net to catch how far off the reality grid your belief system may let you fall.

The saddest part is that before this new theory, religion tended to just ignore some of these proven facts, like dinosaurs. This new silliness is just an adjustment to make a square peg fit in a round hole.

Leftoverhard
10-02-2008, 10:50 AM
Palin is an inspiration to all of us females out here who use our brains, not our bodies to get ahead!


:toofunny: :toofunny: :toofunny:
:rofl: :rofl: :rofl:
:laughing: :laughing: :laughing:
:noidea: :noidea: :noidea:


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZfFH7BVOPYo

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nokTjEdaUGg

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N8Km8L3FBWI

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YUcTyPyJbI8&feature=related


Ok, this is critical and serious. This lady is not a role model - not for her brains. Not for her ideals, not for anything. I know a lot of women who are real role models. This woman is downright scary. I think it would be great to have a woman running for President or VP but this is crazy! There are so many intelligent women politicians out there and sorry to say but Palin is an absolute trainwreck of a choice. I almost feel sorry for her but then I remember she asked for this, she wants this, she is the one who thinks she's the best candidate for the job. That's power hungry and pretty delusional of her to think she can actually fudge her way to being the VP and possibly the most powerful person in the world! Crazy!

X-Terminator
10-02-2008, 10:56 AM
:toofunny: :toofunny: :toofunny:
:rofl: :rofl: :rofl:
:laughing: :laughing: :laughing:
:noidea: :noidea: :noidea:


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZfFH7BVOPYo

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nokTjEdaUGg

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N8Km8L3FBWI

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YUcTyPyJbI8&feature=related


Ok, this is critical and serious. This lady is not a role model - not for her brains. Not for her ideals, not for anything. I know a lot of women who are real role models. This woman is downright scary. I think it would be great to have a woman running for President or VP but this is crazy! There are so many intelligent women politicians out there and sorry to say but Palin is an absolute trainwreck of a choice. I almost feel sorry for her but then I remember she asked for this, she wants this, she is the one who thinks she's the best candidate for the job. That's power hungry and pretty delusional of her to think she can actually fudge her way to being the VP and possibly the most powerful person in the world! Crazy!

So are you saying that a woman on the right, someone with her views can't be a role model for women? Keep in mind, I am not a fan of hers either.

revefsreleets
10-02-2008, 10:59 AM
Kee-rist, would you lefties at least watch the GD debate before you rip her up?

Obama would have fallen on his face had he been asked these questions 3 weeks after his '04 convention speech as well. He's had years to prepare, she's had a month.

Ridiculous. And, again, what nonsense will you devise to cover if she smokes Biden tonight? You are actually quite possibly digging yourself a DEEP hole with all this pre-debate smack talk.

stlrtruck
10-02-2008, 11:02 AM
Flat Earth? Phrenology? Leeching? Universe revolving around the Earth? Once you deny fact, there is no safety net to catch how far off the reality grid your belief system may let you fall.

The saddest part is that before this new theory, religion tended to just ignore some of these proven facts, like dinosaurs. This new silliness is just an adjustment to make a square peg fit in a round hole.

I've read no where in the bible where it talks about a flat earth. Phrenology, is another "method" I've never read of in the bible. Leeching is the only thing I can think of from biblical times, if I'm correct, that was used on leepers, but I'd have to research it to find out more and be accurate in my assumption. The bible also speaks of the sun being the center of the universe. Some theories were produced by scientists, proving once again that science is not definitive. Take a look at the Big-Bang Theory (a scientific *truth*). To believe that a mass collision created the earth and all the universal parts can also be considered a laugher. To think that only one planet out of the big-bang theory would be properly positioned on it's axis to support life and would rotate perfectly without some support from God, imho, takes more faith than to believe that God created the heavens and earth, the sun and moon, the planets and then in all His infinite wisdom decided that He would create man and then command them to pleat the earth.

Here's a Big-Bang Theory - God said So be it and BANG there it was!!!

You see it's not a question of if a person has faith, it's a question of where their faith lies!

revefsreleets
10-02-2008, 11:05 AM
Not arguing with blind faith. It'd be illogical for me to do so...I withdrawl.

stlrtruck
10-02-2008, 11:10 AM
Not arguing with blind faith. It'd be illogical for me to do so...I withdrawl.

Blind faith is what being a Christian is about. Being able to believe without seeing.

Anyway, let's not withdrawal, let's just agree to disagree without argument.

I've enjoyed this discussion with you and I appreciate your respect and I respect your position as well.

What's funny is it sounds like we're on board for the same candidates but for different reasons.

X-Terminator
10-02-2008, 11:12 AM
I've read no where in the bible where it talks about a flat earth. Phrenology, is another "method" I've never read of in the bible. Leeching is the only thing I can think of from biblical times, if I'm correct, that was used on leepers, but I'd have to research it to find out more and be accurate in my assumption. The bible also speaks of the sun being the center of the universe. Some theories were produced by scientists, proving once again that science is not definitive. Take a look at the Big-Bang Theory (a scientific *truth*). To believe that a mass collision created the earth and all the universal parts can also be considered a laugher. To think that only one planet out of the big-bang theory would be properly positioned on it's axis to support life and would rotate perfectly without some support from God, imho, takes more faith than to believe that God created the heavens and earth, the sun and moon, the planets and then in all His infinite wisdom decided that He would create man and then command them to pleat the earth.

Here's a Big-Bang Theory - God said So be it and BANG there it was!!!

You see it's not a question of if a person has faith, it's a question of where their faith lies!

I normally don't get into this kind of argument with someone of faith because every time I do, I end up getting a splitting headache from how jaded they can be because they absolutely refuse to consider anything beyond their narrow point of view. But here's a fact - a great deal of science, especially anything having to do with the universe, is theoretical. I freely admit that. Things such as the LHC will be able to duplicate conditions after the Big Bang, but even that is mostly guesswork. At the same time, you just can't simply say..."well, because science can't prove it, then God must have done it." We can't even prove that God exists. So how can anyone say with absolute certainty that God created everything? We can't. Therefore, just like science, creationism is a theory.

Now before you say it, I am not an atheist. I believe in God. I also believe in the scientific method. There is room for both, and neither cancels out the other.

HometownGal
10-02-2008, 11:19 AM
Nobody lies and calls her a double secret Muslim.

Spin, spin, spin!

It wasn't Palin or McCain who "forgot" they were a Christian or how many states comprise the USA. :toofunny:

Leftoverhard
10-02-2008, 11:40 AM
So are you saying that a woman on the right, someone with her views can't be a role model for women? Keep in mind, I am not a fan of hers either.

No, it has nothing to do with her views, more her lack of them. There are plenty of very intelligent woman poilticians (Republicans) who would have been a better choice for the VP. I thought McCain would pick someone like Heather Wilson from my State. I don't like her politics but I would never accuse her of being anything but very smart and I'm sure could handily answer the simple question "What sources do you get your news from?"

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KyoafptEm5c

stlrtruck
10-02-2008, 11:53 AM
I normally don't get into this kind of argument with someone of faith because every time I do, I end up getting a splitting headache from how jaded they can be because they absolutely refuse to consider anything beyond their narrow point of view. But here's a fact - a great deal of science, especially anything having to do with the universe, is theoretical. I freely admit that. Things such as the LHC will be able to duplicate conditions after the Big Bang, but even that is mostly guesswork. At the same time, you just can't simply say..."well, because science can't prove it, then God must have done it." We can't even prove that God exists. So how can anyone say with absolute certainty that God created everything? We can't. Therefore, just like science, creationism is a theory.

Now before you say it, I am not an atheist. I believe in God. I also believe in the scientific method. There is room for both, and neither cancels out the other.

I understand your opinion, and I'll do my best not to give you a splitting headache. And you're right we can't "prove" God exists (and I wouldn't have labeled you an atheist - I try to stay away from that type of activity). That's where blind faith comes in, to believe what can not be seen by the human eye. In my blind faith I believe that God created everything, and He knows everything. That's just me.

Is it easier to say that some random universal act created something or that God is the creator of all things? Either one has been and will continue to be debated amongst mankind and either until the return of Jesus Christ or the end of this earth, only then will the truth be known by humans. Until then, I will continue to share my faith with others, let them decide for themselves what they want to believe, but I know that I won't have to stand before the King of Kings answering the question, "Why didn't you tell them?"

But I digress, we should probably get this back on topic. It would be interesting to see what the "take" would be if a candidate came out and explicitly declared that they were a non-Christian, believed in the Big-Bang Theory, etc. Would it get a lot of media play or would it be overlooked? It seems that in society today if a person makes an over-the-top statement on faith or non-faith in God that it creates a hysteria of sorts.

revefsreleets
10-02-2008, 12:12 PM
Now that I CAN answer. Being an atheist has almost always been a big no-no in politics in America, and probably always will be. Trust me, the Clinton's are NOT religious people, and are NOT Christians, but they steep themselves in the cloth of Christians because it benefits them in the voter booth.

Europe is much more enlightened than the US, and that's due in large part to the much superior educational system they have, particularly in math and science. There is a direct correlation between increased belief in fantasically impossible religious dogma and a steady decline in math and science scores in the US. A dumbed down population is much more plaible and easier to indoctrinate.

It's ironic, because when I was brought up (as an UBER strict Methodist) we had no trouble reconciling things like evolution and our religion. It's a fairly new entity to complete ignore facts and create a "third way" that ignores everything our eyes and ears tell us is true and real.

If we don't turn this all around, we will continue to get our collective lunch eaten by emerging countries and economies who DO have their feet planted firmly in reality.

Whoops! I went on a rant and got right back into this again...sorry:noidea:

stlrtruck
10-02-2008, 12:17 PM
Now that I CAN answer. Being an atheist has almost always been a big no-no in politics in America, and probably always will be. Trust me, the Clinton's are NOT religious people, and are NOT Christians, but they steep themselves in the cloth of Christians because it benefits them in the voter booth.

Europe is much more enlightened than the US, and that's due in large part to the much superior educational system they have, particularly in math and science. There is a direct correlation between increased belief in fantasically impossible religious dogma and a steady decline in math and science scores in the US. A dumbed down population is much more plaible and easier to indoctrinate.

It's ironic, because when I was brought up (as an UBER strict Methodist) we had no trouble reconciling things like evolution and our religion. It's a fairly new entity to complete ignore facts and create a "third way" that ignores everything our eyes and ears tell us is true and real.

If we don't turn this all around, we will continue to get our collective lunch eaten by emerging countries and economies who DO have their feet planted firmly in reality.

What is this "third way" you speak?

Just curious, what happens to the countries and economies that have their feet planted firmly in reality when that reality becomes challenged, changed, and proven ineffective?

revefsreleets
10-02-2008, 12:25 PM
What is this "third way" you speak?

Just curious, what happens to the countries and economies that have their feet planted firmly in reality when that reality becomes challenged, changed, and proven ineffective?

Third way is to make stuff up that fits a strict literal biblical interpretation.

These emerging economies ARE having and awakening and an enlightenment. It's no coincidence that the Dark Ages coincide with a tamping down of art and culture under the heel of Christianity. We may in fact be entering our own mini dark age as this country moves towards a Theocracy...it begins when educated people begin to believe in fantasical nonsense which is presented as truth through indoctrination. Science and progress will naturally take a backseat...

revefsreleets
10-02-2008, 12:34 PM
I found this interesting...it's a conclusion of a mnay thousand word thesis on Creationism. Sums things up nicely...

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/creationism/

Creationism in the sense used in this discussion is still very much a live phenomenon in American culture today — and in other parts of the world, like the Canadian West, to which it has been exported. Popularity does not imply truth. Scientifically Creationism is worthless, philosophically it is confused, and theologically it is blinkered beyond repair. The same is true of its offspring, Intelligent Design Theory. But do not underestimate its social and political power. As we enter the new millennium, thanks to Johnson and his fellows, there are ongoing pressures to introduce non-evolutionary ideas into science curricula, especially into the science curricula of publicly funded schools in the United States of America. In 2004, in Dover Pennsylvania there was an attempt by the school board to introduce Intelligent Design Theory into the biology classrooms of the publicly funded schools. As it happens, this was rejected strongly by the federal judge trying the case — a man who was appointed by President George W. Bush no less — and the costs of the case will surely deter others from rushing to follow the example of this board (who were incidentally then promptly dropped by the voters.) But the battle is not yet over and things could get a lot worse before they get better, if indeed they will get better. Already, there are members of the United States Supreme Court who have made it clear that they would receive sympathetically calls to push evolution from a preeminent place in science teaching, and with its recent turn to the right it would be foolish to assume that if a case came its way that Creationism or ID theory would be rejected as unsuitable for public school classroom use. If additions are made, with present appointments, we could find that — nearly a century after the Scopes Trial, when the Fundamentalists were perceived as figures of fun — Creationism in one form or another finally takes its place in the classroom.

Unfortunately at the moment, those opposed to Creationism are spending more of their energies quarreling among themselves than fighting the opposition. There is a new crop of very militant atheists, including the biologist and popular writer Richard Dawkins (2006) and the philosopher Daniel Dennett (2005) who are not only against religion but also against those — including non-believers — who do not share their hostility. At least since the time of the Arkansas trial, many fighting Creationism (including Gould 1995) have argued that true religion and science do not conflict. Hence, evolutionists (including non-believers) should make common cause with liberal Christians, who share their hatred of dogmatic Christian fundamentalism. Prominent among those so arguing include the author of this piece, as well as Eugenie Scott of the National Center for Science Education. This has brought on the scorn of the militants. In The God Delusion , Dawkins refers to Ruse and Scott as belonging to the "Neville Chamberlain" school of Creation fighters, making reference to the British prime minister who tried to appease Hitler. Ruse and Scott respond that they were better known as the "Winston Churchill" school of Creation fighters, after Chamberlain's successor, who was prepared to make a pact with the devil (in his case, Josef Stalin) in order to fight the Nazi menace. They argue that in their hostility to religion, the atheists get close to making their own views quasi-religious — certainly they argue that Darwinism is incompatible with religion — and hence ripe for the Creationists' complaint that if Creationism is not to be taught in schools (because it violates the US Constitution's separation of Church and State, then neither should evolution be so taught.

It is to be hoped that this quarrel will soon subside. The battle is fierce and important enough without careless polemics clouding the main issues and the enemy to be fought. At the least, the militant atheists need to respond to the charge that they make the case for evolution teaching constitutionally hard to defend. Overall, however, if this essay persuades even one person to take up the fight against so awful an outcome, then it will have served its purpose.

stlrtruck
10-02-2008, 12:37 PM
Third way is to make stuff up that fits a strict literal biblical interpretation.

These emerging economies ARE having and awakening and an enlightenment. It's no coincidence that the Dark Ages coincide with a tamping down of art and culture under the heel of Christianity. We may in fact be entering our own mini dark age as this country moves towards a Theocracy...it begins when educated people begin to believe in fantasical nonsense which is presented as truth through indoctrination. Science and progress will naturally take a backseat...

So, if I understand you correctly, you are presenting the case that because people choose to take literally the writings in the bible that it sub-plants the "scientific truth" and is replaced with a "fantasical" nonsense based on happenings over 2,000 years ago?

That's like saying that hard evidence should only be used for the case of the existence of anything. Science can not prove everything therefore, things that happen that can not be proved by science should be relegated to, if it can't be reproduced by science then it's a fictional event. I would stand on the foundation that scientific methods are inaccurate and portray a false sense of security into the unknown. While certain facts can not be denied (i.e. gravity does exist), it does not mean that just because I'm an educated man that I necessarily need to have faith in the "methods" in which certain aspects of our creation are supposedly proven (i.e. dinosaurs and the age of the earth).

While you may feel that the bible is "fantasical" nonsense, there are many aspects of the bible that have been proven and the fact that science can not prove various miracles that have been seen throughout the ages does not make it "fantasical" - it makes it just as real as science, the only difference is that some people fear what they can not prove or see.

revefsreleets
10-02-2008, 12:47 PM
I am suggesting that an ignorant people are a pliable people. I'm not tackling any other issue than Creationism here. The other allegories and childrens tales of the bible are better left for another day.

I'm saying this: When we turn our back on science, we will fall behind in the World. Our math and science scores (which we used to lead the World in) have dropped precipitously, and I argue that is a cause, not a symptom, of the acceptance of ridiculous notions such as the World only being 6,000 years old. An educated society would dismiss disproven and indefensible junk science out of hand. An ignorant society, indoctrinated from birth with religious dogma accepts this "science" as gospel fact. You are, as we speak, arguing AGAINST scientificcaly proven facts solely from a faith based religious platform. Provide me ONE piece of scientific data that the World is only 6,000 years old and I will concede and slink away a beaten man. Just one.

The facts are facts. The World is millions of years old. When the tail starts wagging the dog, and you deny the facts by making new "facts" based on faith alone, you open yourself up to having other "new facts" trump reality. Where does it end?

Meanwhile, Rome burns...

stlrtruck
10-02-2008, 12:57 PM
I found this interesting...it's a conclusion of a mnay thousand word thesis on Creationism. Sums things up nicely...

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/creationism/

Creationism in the sense used in this discussion is still very much a live phenomenon in American culture today — and in other parts of the world, like the Canadian West, to which it has been exported. Popularity does not imply truth. Scientifically Creationism is worthless, philosophically it is confused, and theologically it is blinkered beyond repair. The same is true of its offspring, Intelligent Design Theory. But do not underestimate its social and political power. As we enter the new millennium, thanks to Johnson and his fellows, there are ongoing pressures to introduce non-evolutionary ideas into science curricula, especially into the science curricula of publicly funded schools in the United States of America. In 2004, in Dover Pennsylvania there was an attempt by the school board to introduce Intelligent Design Theory into the biology classrooms of the publicly funded schools. As it happens, this was rejected strongly by the federal judge trying the case — a man who was appointed by President George W. Bush no less — and the costs of the case will surely deter others from rushing to follow the example of this board (who were incidentally then promptly dropped by the voters.) But the battle is not yet over and things could get a lot worse before they get better, if indeed they will get better. Already, there are members of the United States Supreme Court who have made it clear that they would receive sympathetically calls to push evolution from a preeminent place in science teaching, and with its recent turn to the right it would be foolish to assume that if a case came its way that Creationism or ID theory would be rejected as unsuitable for public school classroom use. If additions are made, with present appointments, we could find that — nearly a century after the Scopes Trial, when the Fundamentalists were perceived as figures of fun — Creationism in one form or another finally takes its place in the classroom.

Unfortunately at the moment, those opposed to Creationism are spending more of their energies quarreling among themselves than fighting the opposition. There is a new crop of very militant atheists, including the biologist and popular writer Richard Dawkins (2006) and the philosopher Daniel Dennett (2005) who are not only against religion but also against those — including non-believers — who do not share their hostility. At least since the time of the Arkansas trial, many fighting Creationism (including Gould 1995) have argued that true religion and science do not conflict. Hence, evolutionists (including non-believers) should make common cause with liberal Christians, who share their hatred of dogmatic Christian fundamentalism. Prominent among those so arguing include the author of this piece, as well as Eugenie Scott of the National Center for Science Education. This has brought on the scorn of the militants. In The God Delusion , Dawkins refers to Ruse and Scott as belonging to the "Neville Chamberlain" school of Creation fighters, making reference to the British prime minister who tried to appease Hitler. Ruse and Scott respond that they were better known as the "Winston Churchill" school of Creation fighters, after Chamberlain's successor, who was prepared to make a pact with the devil (in his case, Josef Stalin) in order to fight the Nazi menace. They argue that in their hostility to religion, the atheists get close to making their own views quasi-religious — certainly they argue that Darwinism is incompatible with religion — and hence ripe for the Creationists' complaint that if Creationism is not to be taught in schools (because it violates the US Constitution's separation of Church and State, then neither should evolution be so taught.

It is to be hoped that this quarrel will soon subside. The battle is fierce and important enough without careless polemics clouding the main issues and the enemy to be fought. At the least, the militant atheists need to respond to the charge that they make the case for evolution teaching constitutionally hard to defend. Overall, however, if this essay persuades even one person to take up the fight against so awful an outcome, then it will have served its purpose.

Talk about a reach.

From what I gather, this individual was already against Creationism so he probably sought out the specific studies that would further solidify his thoughts. Just as I would assume an individual seeking to prove Creationism would do the same without taking the time to review the other side completely and as thoroughly as they did their own, only to finalize a thesis and receive a grade on it.

The teaching of creationism has nothing to do with the separation of church and state. The entire separation of church and state is to do with government determining a state run religion, teaching creationism is the same as teaching evolution, both theories (according to you). Evolution has not, as far as I remember, been proven. And to this day in my life I have not seen a creature crawling out of the muck and the mire to become human.

When I went to school there was never a discussion of teaching either creationism or evolution. We were taught evolution. And while I answered the questions on the tests correctly I, personally, questioned the theory of evolution and desired for something more. In my own time and through my own intellectual thought process it is faith in creationism and in the Word of God that has brought me "more".

I recently came across this article, feel free to check out the entire website.
http://www.therightnews.org/literalcreation.htm

revefsreleets
10-02-2008, 01:02 PM
LOL...questioning the credibility of a thesis coming out of Stanford University and countering with a far-right reactionary fundamentalist blog?

Really? REALLY?

This is why I was initially correct to recuse myself from this "argument". As I originally (and quite rightly) assessed, there is not even a logical debate to be had here.

stlrtruck
10-02-2008, 01:13 PM
I am suggesting that an ignorant people are a pliable people. I'm not tackling any other issue than Creationism here. The other allegories and childrens tales of the bible are better left for another day.

I'm saying this: When we turn our back on science, we will fall behind in the World. Our math and science scores (which we used to lead the World in) have dropped precipitously, and I argue that is a cause, not a symptom, of the acceptance of ridiculous notions such as the World only being 6,000 years old. An educated society would dismiss disproven and indefensible junk science out of hand. An ignorant society, indoctrinated from birth with religious dogma accepts this "science" as gospel fact. You are, as we speak, arguing AGAINST scientificcaly proven facts solely from a faith based religious platform. Provide me ONE piece of scientific data that the World is only 6,000 years old and I will concede and slink away a beaten man. Just one.

The facts are facts. The World is millions of years old. When the tail starts wagging the dog, and you deny the facts by making new "facts" based on faith alone, you open yourself up to having other "new facts" trump reality. Where does it end?

Meanwhile, Rome burns...

My proof of the earth's age is in the bible. One could mathematically calculate the ages spent between the birth of Christ and the birth of Earth as mentioned in Genesis, utilizing the ages of those inviduals listed in the Old Testament. But gathering from recent discussions I would presume that you have no desire to utilize the bible as factual events so therefore, me attempting to prove to you that the earth is only thousands of years old vs. millions of years old is like trying to determine the next 6 winning numbers in the lottery.

My so-called new facts are not based on faith, but based on the written word of God. These so-called new facts are not new, they are religated to the shelf because in today's society the mere mention pure faith in God and Jesus Christ is grounds for being "fantasical". The reality is that men can not destroy what God has created, and while they can do their best to determine the age of the earth through flawed scientific methods, the truth and the facts remain in book that others were prefer not to acknowledge.

stlrtruck
10-02-2008, 01:18 PM
LOL...questioning the credibility of a thesis coming out of Stanford University and countering with a far-right reactionary fundamentalist blog?

Really? REALLY?

This is why I was initially correct to recuse myself from this "argument". As I originally (and quite rightly) assessed, there is not even a logical debate to be had here.

Really? Yes Really. Seriously, I will not have some college thesis or book (The God Delusion), jeopardize my faith nor my place in heaven. You seem not to want to believe in God, and that's on you. One day, not today, most likely not tomorrow, the absolute truth about the creation of earth will be realized.

Just because the thesis came out of Stanford does not give it grounds for credibility. I'm sure there have been plenty of thesis world wide coming out of a multitude of colleges and universities that have been thought to be askew. Just because I over a different view and have offered a website that uses biblical text to offer a counter-thought makes it no less wrong.

Using the word "logic" is just as hilarious to me. The word logic is based on one's on perception of logic. What you think is logical does not necessarily fit my definition of logical. For example, you think it's logical to base your life on scientific facts while I find it logical to base my life on faith in the Word of God.

But in this discussion, I've stated what I feel are my views. You don't have to agree with them, nor does it make me less of a person because they are different than yours (something you've inferred). They are different...period!

I'm just curious do you believe in hell? What about satan?

Here's a list of things I would like you to prove for me using scientific theories:
1) How is the sun where it's at?
2) How does it stay there?
3) Same questions for the moon?
4) Why don't the oceans cover more land?
5) How is it that fossils of animals are found in elevations they "logically" shouldn't be in?
6) If evolution is the "truth" then why aren't anymore humans walking out of the muck and the mire? Or coming out of the jungles as evolution from monkeys?

And one final question, if the day comes that someone asks you to take a mark on your forehead or hand - what would your answer be?

Leftoverhard
10-02-2008, 02:05 PM
Maybe we all came from aliens? That's a theory.
sorry to interrupt, please continue, I couldn't help myself, carry on...

HometownGal
10-02-2008, 02:14 PM
Maybe we all came from aliens?

If I were a bettin' person, I'd say you are correct as far as Libs go. :flap::chuckle:

stlrtruck
10-02-2008, 02:48 PM
Maybe we all came from aliens? That's a theory.
sorry to interrupt, please continue, I couldn't help myself, carry on...

nice slice of humor, brought a smile to my face and chuckle to go along with it
:applaudit: :laughing:

stlrtruck
10-02-2008, 02:49 PM
Maybe we all came from aliens? That's a theory.
sorry to interrupt, please continue, I couldn't help myself, carry on...

And one day we're all gonna have an unplugged concert with Elvis.

Leftoverhard
10-02-2008, 04:22 PM
:banana: :chicken: :chuckle: lol

Preacher
10-02-2008, 04:30 PM
:doh:

Well... Guess I don't need to speak to this thread as the main people involved here know where I stand.


What DOES bother me greatly however, is that it seems perfectly ok to attack a part of my belief system, meanwhile if I make a comment about a central aspect of the muslim, Jewish, black american, feminist, homosexual culture, etc belief system, I am closed minded and not culturally sensitive.

Any of you who expect us to be culturally relative MUST allow for christians to also beleive what they believe without critique or derision, or your being hypocritial.

For those who choose to apply certain standards across the board, this post does not apply to you. However, it should bother EVERYONE that personal religious beleifs are becoming a litmus test for public office.

Preacher
10-02-2008, 04:31 PM
Maybe we all came from aliens? That's a theory.
sorry to interrupt, please continue, I couldn't help myself, carry on...

Actually, that is one of the three choices... though it only pushes the argument back a step...

Where did the aliens come from? :hunch:

revefsreleets
10-02-2008, 06:15 PM
Really? Yes Really. Seriously, I will not have some college thesis or book (The God Delusion), jeopardize my faith nor my place in heaven. You seem not to want to believe in God, and that's on you. One day, not today, most likely not tomorrow, the absolute truth about the creation of earth will be realized.

Just because the thesis came out of Stanford does not give it grounds for credibility. I'm sure there have been plenty of thesis world wide coming out of a multitude of colleges and universities that have been thought to be askew. Just because I over a different view and have offered a website that uses biblical text to offer a counter-thought makes it no less wrong.

Using the word "logic" is just as hilarious to me. The word logic is based on one's on perception of logic. What you think is logical does not necessarily fit my definition of logical. For example, you think it's logical to base your life on scientific facts while I find it logical to base my life on faith in the Word of God.

But in this discussion, I've stated what I feel are my views. You don't have to agree with them, nor does it make me less of a person because they are different than yours (something you've inferred). They are different...period!

I'm just curious do you believe in hell? What about satan?

Here's a list of things I would like you to prove for me using scientific theories:
1) How is the sun where it's at?
2) How does it stay there?
3) Same questions for the moon?
4) Why don't the oceans cover more land?
5) How is it that fossils of animals are found in elevations they "logically" shouldn't be in?
6) If evolution is the "truth" then why aren't anymore humans walking out of the muck and the mire? Or coming out of the jungles as evolution from monkeys?

And one final question, if the day comes that someone asks you to take a mark on your forehead or hand - what would your answer be?

Let me guess?

1. The Sun IS the center of the universe, right?
2. God holds it there in his hand
3. I'm not sure, since I have no idea what God might have told you
4. Again, I'm sure you have some answer to this question, a question I've never asked, because why would I? It makes no sense.
5. "Logically"? C'mon now...creationism was arrived at by having "the answer" first, then omitting what didn't fit with that conclusion, and liberally adding "faith" to fill the huge glaring gaps in these arguments.
6. Because evolution (which is actually happening around us as we speak http://abcnews.go.com/Technology/wireStory?id=5373461 ) generally takes millions of years. Which, of course is impossible because the world is only 6,000 years old, although it's really not.

And, finally, I gave up believing in that apocalyptic claptrap years ago. If someone asked me to get a stamp on my hand, I'd assume I needed it to get into a bar....or they watched too many Kirk Cameron movies.

Seriously, if we keep doing this, and your answers get more and more foolish (which is the only direction this can go), I'm going to become much less serious, poke more and more fun, and maybe even start refuting these ridiculous notions with hard and real empirical data. So far I've just been tossing some stuff off the top of my head...

stlrtruck
10-03-2008, 08:52 AM
Let me guess?

1. The Sun IS the center of the universe, right?
2. God holds it there in his hand
3. I'm not sure, since I have no idea what God might have told you
4. Again, I'm sure you have some answer to this question, a question I've never asked, because why would I? It makes no sense.
5. "Logically"? C'mon now...creationism was arrived at by having "the answer" first, then omitting what didn't fit with that conclusion, and liberally adding "faith" to fill the huge glaring gaps in these arguments.
6. Because evolution (which is actually happening around us as we speak http://abcnews.go.com/Technology/wireStory?id=5373461 ) generally takes millions of years. Which, of course is impossible because the world is only 6,000 years old, although it's really not.

And, finally, I gave up believing in that apocalyptic claptrap years ago. If someone asked me to get a stamp on my hand, I'd assume I needed it to get into a bar....or they watched too many Kirk Cameron movies.

Seriously, if we keep doing this, and your answers get more and more foolish (which is the only direction this can go), I'm going to become much less serious, poke more and more fun, and maybe even start refuting these ridiculous notions with hard and real empirical data. So far I've just been tossing some stuff off the top of my head...

1) The sun is the center of our universe, but not the center of God's. But even early scientists thought the earth was the center (funny how scientists changed their answers later but the word of God remains true and unchanged)
2) That's funny
3) God's word speaks of the wonderful creation that is heaven and earth
4) See #3
5) I think you mised the question here so I'll ask it again it a different manner. Please explain to me how remains of fish have been found in mountain ranges where there are currently no rivers?
6) Evolution is a product of our growth, but God has seen these days before they have happened. Evolution can happen over a short period of time, isn't evolution a bigger word for change? It is our scientists that tell us it has to take X number of million of years.

You think my answers are foolish because you choose not believe in the one true living God. You have no interest in opening your mind to the possibility that of everything you know in the world there is still so much more that you don't know and in that unknown there possibly could be God - but you don't want to search the unknown. You want the tangible, you want what the eyes see, the tongue tastes, the ear hears, and the body feels. And yet in that you still don't call that faith, because it still takes faith (belief) in someone telling you that what they are doing is accurate and true (without yourself being there to verify the events in which they arrive at their answer). You call it logic but even logic is a humanistic approach to an answer you want to get. People use the phrase, "logically it makes sense" but they want to others to use their same logic which is an unrealistic expectation. It would be the same as someone telling you it is more logical to be a fan of a different team than the Steelers. Well whose logic is it, yours or theirs?

You're right though this can only continue to decline, and just as silly as you think my answers are, I find your hard heartedness sad. Again, make fun of my beliefs if you want, poke fun at me, but I know where my future lies and it won't be here with a bunch of scientists trying to prove things they don't understand and won't be able to prove. But I'll be praying for you :thumbsup:

revefsreleets
10-03-2008, 09:17 AM
Thanks for telling me what I believe. Guess what? Wrong again! I mean you are WAY WAY off...the second to last paragraph was basically 100% incorrect conjecture on your (or your coachs) part...

I do believe in God, but not the God of your INCREDIBLY narrow scope. Not the God who wants to wipe out all the non-believers and Jews in Hell fire and brimstone. Not the merciless God who is going to slaughter billions of "non-believers" because they don't fit into one tightly knit little group of people who believe just exactly as you believe.

The sun is the center of our universe, huh? Tectonic shifts ring any bells? How about Pangea? Wouldn't there be fish in mountain ranges because of Noah's flood? Your own questions provide answers which negate your original arguments.

Also, who's preparing these answers for you? It's clear there are a couple different "voices" in these replies. Remember now, it's a sin to lie...

stlrtruck
10-03-2008, 09:29 AM
Thanks for telling me what I believe. Guess what? Wrong again! I mean you are WAY WAY off...the second to last paragraph was basically 100% incorrect conjecture on your (or your coachs) part...

I do believe in God, but not the God of your INCREDIBLY narrow scope. Not the God who wants to wipe out all the non-believers and Jews in Hell fire and brimstone. Not the merciless God who is going to slaughter billions of "non-believers" because they don't fit into one tightly knit little group of people who believe just exactly as you believe.

The sun is the center of our universe, huh? Tectonic shifts ring any bells? How about Pangea? Wouldn't there be fish in mountain ranges because of Noah's flood? Your own questions provide answers which negate your original arguments.

Also, who's preparing these answers for you? It's clear there are a couple different "voices" in these replies. Remember now, it's a sin to lie...

Just curious as to what god you believe in then. Because according to the God in the bible it's going to happen. And it's not a little group as you propose. It's only a silent group, which is a topic for a different discussion.

And yes the fish in the mountain's would be because of Noah's flood. That was my point. Scientists want to use "new theories" (mean theories that have been born into view since the early 1900's or later) to answer a question that was answered thousands of years before they even researched it. However you think my original questions negate my arguments is an amusing idea to me. Nothing that I have asked or stated negates anything. IMHO, the questions show my deep rooted belief that the Lord is the creator of all things and there are things in this world that can not be explained by science because the logic they use doesn't not correspond to God's word.

As for "preparing" my answers, it's only me. And yes I know it's a sin to lie. And it seems that the beginning of the last argument most people like to use against individuals that believe like I do is the whole, "it's a sin". Wanting to utilize a Godly standard for the believer but on they rarely apply to their ownselves.

X-Terminator
10-03-2008, 09:36 AM
Just like the OP suggested Palin bow out, I'm now going to bow out of this particular discussion. I could answer all of your questions, stlrtruck, but none of them would be satisfactory to you. This is why I said earlier that arguing this subject with a Bible thumper (no offense) is pointless, and only gives me a headache. I do respect you and your opinions. :drink:

revefsreleets
10-03-2008, 09:42 AM
Dude, you are saying that Catholics are going to Hell. You are saying that all Hindu's are going to Hell. Muslims: Hell. Mormons? Hell. Only people who strictly interpret the bible JUST THE WAY you do (and not the Torah or the Talmud...literally to Hell with all those believers) are going to be saved. What kind of cruel God would be so awful as to only save a few people out of billions because they just so happened to be the only ones who interpretted one book exactly one way?

I don't know, but I can pretty much tell...you're a Southern baptist, right?

stlrtruck
10-03-2008, 10:14 AM
Just like the OP suggested Palin bow out, I'm now going to bow out of this particular discussion. I could answer all of your questions, stlrtruck, but none of them would be satisfactory to you. This is why I said earlier that arguing this subject with a Bible thumper (no offense) is pointless, and only gives me a headache. I do respect you and your opinions. :drink:

Mutual respect is given XT, but honestly it has nothing to do with satisfactory answers but more about having an open discussion and listening to other's opinions. While I may not agree and I will counter with my own opinions, I do not decree that I am better or more intelligent than the next person. Lord knows and I'm fully aware of the fact that there are better educated and more well spoken individuals out there.

BTW, no offense taken to the Bible thumper comment.

stlrtruck
10-03-2008, 10:22 AM
Dude, you are saying that Catholics are going to Hell. You are saying that all Hindu's are going to Hell. Muslims: Hell. Mormons? Hell. Only people who strictly interpret the bible JUST THE WAY you do (and not the Torah or the Talmud...literally to Hell with all those believers) are going to be saved. What kind of cruel God would be so awful as to only save a few people out of billions because they just so happened to be the only ones who interpretted one book exactly one way?

I don't know, but I can pretty much tell...you're a Southern baptist, right?

No what I'm saying is that any invidiual who has not accepted Jesus Christ as Lord and Savior is going to Hell. Even some that proclaim to be Christian will be in Hell. And I will not sit in judgment of who I think is going to hell. I know not their relationship with Jesus Christ and considering I have enough problems in my own life with my own sin, I don't want to take on that function.

The Jesus Christ that I'm in relationship with LOVES EVERYONE and wants everyone to turn from their sin, repent, and accept Him as their Savior. And that will continue to happen for people, but eventually, in my belief, there will come a time when the tribulation will happen and the rapture of the church will take place and one day Heaven will be on earth.

And no, I'm not Southern Baptist. I attend an inter-denomionational church that believes in bible based teachings. Nice try though. :thumbsup:

As I've stated before Rev, it looks like we'll have to agree to disagree. We both have our belief systems. Yours seems to be more founded in scientific truth and mine in biblical truth. I have no problem if you want to continue the discussion, but it seems that it may have run it's course and there is no sense in either of us getting to a place (as XT mentions) of headaches and disgust with the other.

I respect your opinion and what you offered in this dialogue.

revefsreleets
10-03-2008, 10:28 AM
Well, your church and the Southern Baptists can enjoy having heaven all to yourselves, while the other 5 billion 900 million of us will rot in Hell.

And that's all I have to say about that....

Leftoverhard
10-03-2008, 11:10 AM
Seriously, don't you think if He was going to try and blackmail us into doing something, He would want us all to be Steelers fans?
Can you imagine how completely awful that would be?

stlrtruck
10-03-2008, 11:45 AM
Well, your church and the Southern Baptists can enjoy having heaven all to yourselves, while the other 5 billion 900 million of us will rot in Hell.

And that's all I have to say about that....

Sorry you feel that way. There's a place there for you too, if you want it...and that's all I have to say about that.

Again, nice having the dialogue with you.

Michael Keller
10-03-2008, 01:26 PM
I have been looking for a meaningful well thought out reason for choosing a candidate this year. After a long , intelligent search I finally have one.

I AM IN LOVE WITH SARA PALIN. Thank God for clarity and simplicity.

Vis
10-03-2008, 01:34 PM
If we all vote with our dicks we get what we deserve

MACH1
10-03-2008, 01:36 PM
I we all vote with our dicks we get what we deserve

"A fool and his money are soon parted" Vote Obama

Michael Keller
10-03-2008, 02:03 PM
What I am most gratyeful is that I have a well tested sense of humor. Reading these posts and smiling or laughing proves it.

16 years of Sara Palin in the White house .Wow !! My version Camelot has finally arrived. LOL

HometownGal
10-03-2008, 02:16 PM
What I am most gratyeful is that I have a well tested sense of humor. Reading these posts and smiling or laughing proves it.

16 years of Sara Palin in the White house .Wow !! My version Camelot has finally arrived. LOL

Sure beats having a man with Muslim and racist ties as the #1 and a drunk as the #2. Any day of the week and 4x on Sundays. LOL

HometownGal
10-03-2008, 02:19 PM
If we all vote with our dicks we get what we deserve

If you are voting the Obama/Biden ticket, you ARE voting with (and for) your dick and the head too. :chuckle:

Leftoverhard
10-03-2008, 03:06 PM
I AM IN LOVE WITH SARA PALIN.

So is McCain - Why not? She's cuter than a basket full of puppies.


http://img530.imageshack.us/img530/170/tinafeyanimationft2.gif (http://img530.imageshack.us/my.php?image=tinafeyanimationft2.gif) Image Hosting (http://www.picgames.com/forum/myspace-image-help.php)

Vis
10-03-2008, 03:09 PM
So is McCain - Why not? She's cuter than a basket full of puppies.


http://img530.imageshack.us/img530/170/tinafeyanimationft2.gif (http://img530.imageshack.us/my.php?image=tinafeyanimationft2.gif) Image Hosting (http://www.picgames.com/forum/myspace-image-help.php)


Drill, baby, drill

MACH1
10-03-2008, 03:19 PM
http://www.theodoresworld.net/pics/0107/BidenImage3.jpg

http://blogs.citypages.com/canderson/images/biden_foot.jpg

HometownGal
10-03-2008, 03:25 PM
http://ace.mu.nu/archives/BidenCaveman.jpg

HometownGal
10-03-2008, 03:28 PM
http://www.nomansblog.com/wp-content/themes/3ColumnK2/images/biden.jpg

revefsreleets
10-03-2008, 04:13 PM
Well, getting back to the original topic of this thread, Palin ain't backin' out, so I guess it's all a moot point now, right?

stlrtruck
10-03-2008, 04:28 PM
Yeah, pretty much. Besides even if she wanted to back out, if she did she would damage the ticket more than anything else at this point.