The post I just wrote in the other thread money, money sort of started up a little rant, but I didn't think it was on-topic over there, so I figured I'd take the last bit and put it here.
Eh, I just think it's a scary time in history. I've gotten in discussions with one of my slightly paranoid liberal friends, and he seems to be very worried of the outcome of America and the war if McCain is elected. I always try to see presidential candidates' true intentions over the political crap they feed the voters, and maybe it's just me, but I get the impression that McCain wants to go gung-ho with this war, toughen up America, and basically introduce the attitude that times are tough, get over complaining about it, fight for what you're living for if it means that much to you, and otherwise we don't need you and won't miss you all that much. Now really, I quite agree with this mindset-- sure, if you're not willing to work for your values, you're not going to work for any other reason and therefore you're not being much help to anyone else around you (including your children). What I'm more worried about is whether America can really handle a transformation that will be so hard to go through, when we're already STARTING at such a low point.
Obama is a little harder to see his true intentions based on just his personality, which is scary in some ways, but actually makes me think that he's a little more honest than McCain. McCain has been losing lots of respect points from me lately by trying a little too hard to get voters... I mean, really; Palin? Oh well. I get the impression from Obama that he really does have a plan in mind, and he really will do whatever it takes to get America in better shape. And it doesn't involve getting rid of some people in the process... at least I don't think it does. Plus Obama seems to deal really well with having to make really quick decisions. So far I've been very impressed with how he's responded to everything thrown at him, while McCain tends to get a little angry at things :-P Obama is a great public speaker, and although you could easily combat that with "Well so was Hitler, look where he led Germany," I don't get the scary Nazi impression from Obama.
Welp... there's one more presidential debate, and then this shit goes down. This is huuuge.
Okay, I said on Facebook that Palin scares me deeply and a friend of mine asked why. So I made a long document and she responded with a long document. I would like to see what people have to say about them.
First I'll post my statement:
Well, it's been easy enough for me to just casually say why she scared me, so I didn't really have anything prepared to bring to the debate table. But I'll try to give my reasons why Sarah Palin scares me.
First, let me start by saying that I don't think we can really know with any certainty what any politician will do once in office. Obama panders, McCain panders, all politicians pander during their campaign because they want to pull in votes. So matters of policy, while interesting to me, don't fully inform my decision. Most of what they say is too vague to really make a decision anyway, so I look to what other information I can find.
So, Sarah Palin. I'm sure there's a lot of back and forth on the truth of the following information, but it keeps coming up and it's never been denied, so there must be a grain of truth behind it.
1: 6000 year creationist? Seems like that's her belief, and I really do feel like anyone that focused on religion over scientific inquiry can't be a terribly open-minded person. There's nothing wrong with being Christian; it often promotes an upright morality. But 6000 year creationists are different. They build their entire worldviews on literal interpretation of the Bible, which generally bring a host of other undesirables; intolerance toward homosexuality, a Christian-centric view of right and wrong, good and evil, and a general desire for moral control. It encourages a worldview full of binaries, and I think that thinking in binaries is a really bad way to run a country.
Of course, just speculation and one person's comment about her being a 6000 year creationist isn't really enough. So, let me continue.
2: She apparently is okay with the practice of banning books, and this is one of the most heinous practices in my mind. By being okay with banning books, you're okay with withholding knowledge from people. That's the first step toward thoughtcrime. It may sound idealist, but I really do believe that people should be allowed to consume information from nearly any source. I say nearly because I never like to speak in totality. I also understand the desire to caution children away from certain material, but banning books takes that to a whole new level, and makes me shy away from her.
3: Abstinence-only sex ed? Okay, neither form of sex-education will be perfect. Just like I said: binaries. You're not going to have a perfectly right and perfectly wrong option. But I think abstinence-only is less desirable than sex ed that teaches contraception and responsibility. I don't think that sex should necessarily be just between two married people, and just as in point number 2, I think people should be given information and given the choice of how to act upon that information.
So, big deal, right? These are just a few small areas of policy that she'll probably have no control over. Yes, that's true. However, I don't judge her because she may vote on these policies, but because I believe that her stances on these policies give me crucial insight into her thought patterns. She seems to prefer a country where morality and thought is shaped and controlled into the "right" form, and that form is likely the form dictated by fundamentalist Christianity. And since I am quite opposed to that particular worldview, I think that Sarah Palin is not someone I want in power.
And those are the reasons I feel more confident about... I would also point to her performance at the vice presidential debate and during interviews throughout the past months and point to her lack of ability to consistently string together coherent sentences. Regardless of how smart she really is, she's poised to be the face of America to the world. Do we want a verbal bumbler representing us? Bush has made us look dumb enough with his stumbling speech.
But that reason is only a matter of preference, and I don't think stands as strongly as the others.
Feel free to respond. It is through debate and discussion that our ideas are tempered or reforged, and I fully admit that I may be misguided in some of my ideas.
Well, unfortunately a lot of the things that you mention really stem from hearsay - what a friend of a friend suggests Palin said at one time or another; perhaps I'm taking too much of a legal stance on it, but that generally wouldn't hold up in a court of law. It would be dismissed - and with good reason. Hearsay is, ultimately, the most unreliable form of "evidence."
I do know that when faced with the question of whether to teach creationism or evolution in schools, she is an advocate of teaching both - not JUST creationism nor JUST evolution. I personally do not see a problem with such a thing. Regarding banning books, most of that talk has stemmed from a rumor circulated on the internet attached to a list of books that Palin supposedly banned in 1996. Actually, the list contains several books that had not even been published yet (ex: the Harry Potter books, which started in 1998). It's pretty much an historical list of books that have been banned in the US - not just Alaska - at one time or another. Make of that what you will.
As for abstinence-only sex education: that's a party-line issue so I really can't debate you there, but abstinence-only sex education still contains descriptions and information regarding contraceptives. It may not be presented in the best light, but kids are still given that information. For my part, as a future parent, I really wouldn't want schools telling my children "it's OK to have sex as long as you use a condom." That's MY choice to tell MY children depending on the moral values I decide to emphasize and the risks I would want them to avoid until they're old enough to understand the consequences of their actions. The best way, in my opinion, to present information on contraceptives is objectively - this is what they are, this is how they work, and here are the chances that it will fail or not fail. I'm sure you remember sex ed - we were given abstinence only sex education; I frankly didn't know the difference - they just said that the only way to make sure you don't get pregnant or don't get a disease is to not have sex, and frankly, it's hard to deny the truth in that. I feel that otherwise the government oversteps its boundaries. I raise my children. Not them.
I therefore think that the argument that she wants to shape morality and thought through governmental means is actually incorrect - the ultimate goal of the Republican party is to ensure that morality remains the duty of the PARENTS to instill in their children. While it is difficult for teachers to maintain objectivity in their teaching styles, it's wrong to put in place programs that take the power away from the parents and put it in the hands of the education system. In desiring to teach both creationism and evolution, I think the only thing that can be claimed to be misguided is that Palin doesn't suggest teaching other religions' creation stories as well. Perhaps that's something she didn't think of; perhaps she would be opposed to it. I don't know. But I don't see how it'd be bad to learn both. And book banning? Well. I guess I just don't go on information I can't confirm.
Turning from Sarah Palin for a moment, though - allow me to review your arguments in another way. Let's assume everything you alleged is true. She's a Bible thumping, book-banning, mojo-killing moose hunter. In comparison to how much the real Obama scares me, this characterization of Palin seems tame.
It's confirmed that Obama has associations with terrorist Bill Ayers. The served on an eight-person board together for an Anti-Poverty program - I'm fairly certain they've talked. Ayers also contributed to Obama's campaign. Ayers is often quoted as saying he wished he'd bombed more US targets than he managed to during his terrorist days - even after 9/11.
I'm not sure if you've seen videos of Obama's pastor, Reverend Wright. If not, it bears a look on YouTube. Wright was Obama's pastor for 20 years - again, confirmed by Obama himself - and performed his marriage ceremony; when the videos surfaced, Obama disowned the pastor, as it was expedient to do so. Wright frequently used phrases such as "Goddamn America" and suggested that the US government introduced the AIDS virus into society as a means of eradicating the black population (again, there's direct evidence via video tape). He is responsible for some of the most vitriolic, anti-American sentiment to ever be spoken in public. And Obama was listening to him for a good 20 years. Anti-Americanism may not seem like a big issue but to put it another way... do you really want someone who possibly hates our country, to be running our country? It's a huge issue. McCain isn't perfect, but considering what he's been through, at least you know he loves America and wouldn't want to see another 9/11. I'm very concerned that Obama does not want what's best for America at all, as his associations suggest that he's really not very fond of this country.
Regarding policy issues, it's true you can't go by what they say, but you can go by their voting records. Obama voted in favor of partial-birth abortion. Even your average pro-choicer usually shudders at such a thought. Oh, he also voted against an Illinois bill that would have mandated life-saving treatment for infants who managed to survive partial-birth abortion. The children would be saved and most likely put up for adoption or become a ward of the state. He voted AGAINST that. And again, that isn't hearsay, it's a matter of public record.
Anyways - I'm sure you'll make up your own mind about who to vote for, but I hope you'll at least consider some of the things I've mentioned in your decision. I guess it's a matter of who scares you more - Palin or Obama. For me, it's Obama. No politician is ever perfect (remember the South Park episode on elections? You get to pick from a Turd Sandwich or a Giant Dousche!). At this point it's almost like you're just trying to vote against the other guy.
Let me know if you have any questions or anything or wish to continue our discussion! I have nothing against a debate and hope you don't take my tone as unfriendly (it's not intended to be at all).
Your friend's reply is infuriating because she denounces your worries about Palin as just hearsay and then she rattles off a list of bullshit about Obama.
I do know that when faced with the question of whether to teach creationism or evolution in schools, she is an advocate of teaching both - not JUST creationism nor JUST evolution. I personally do not see a problem with such a thing.
Regarding banning books, most of that talk has stemmed from a rumor circulated on the internet attached to a list of books that Palin supposedly banned in 1996. Actually, the list contains several books that had not even been published yet (ex: the Harry Potter books, which started in 1998). It's pretty much an historical list of books that have been banned in the US - not just Alaska - at one time or another. Make of that what you will.
Except, she did ban books from the local library, and fired the librarian over it. (Well, also because she suspected the librarian was politically against her). Just because an email forward was wrong about it doesn't mean the entire allegation is false.
The best way, in my opinion, to present information on contraceptives is objectively - this is what they are, this is how they work, and here are the chances that it will fail or not fail. I'm sure you remember sex ed - we were given abstinence only sex education; I frankly didn't know the difference - they just said that the only way to make sure you don't get pregnant or don't get a disease is to not have sex, and frankly, it's hard to deny the truth in that.
The entire premise of abstinence-only sex ed is the denial of the information that you say is the best method - no mention of condoms or anything, because if you say it, they'll run out and use it, oh no! I don't care about your morals, I care about the kids who are full of hormones in an over-suggestive culture who are being kept ignorant and end up fucking each other anyway. This leads to those dreaded teen pregnancies and abortions that you thought this stupid idea would prevent in the first place. If your kid can't learn about condoms at school without becoming a sex fiend, then your cherished values aren't as strong as you though, eh? Or perhaps that's what its about -- carnal forbearance is lame and you have to tilt the playing field to your unfair advantage.
It's confirmed that Obama has associations with terrorist Bill Ayers. The served on an eight-person board together for an Anti-Poverty program - I'm fairly certain they've talked. Ayers also contributed to Obama's campaign. Ayers is often quoted as saying he wished he'd bombed more US targets than he managed to during his terrorist days - even after 9/11.
...so? Every politician at some point talked to someone that is unsavory. We could find someone really disquieting that has 'talked' to every single Presidential candidate.
I'm not sure if you've seen videos of Obama's pastor, Reverend Wright BLAH BLAH BLAH
He rejected and denounced him, what more do you want?
Anti-Americanism may not seem like a big issue but to put it another way... do you really want someone who possibly hates our country, to be running our country? It's a huge issue. McCain isn't perfect, but considering what he's been through, at least you know he loves America and wouldn't want to see another 9/11. I'm very concerned that Obama does not want what's best for America at all, as his associations suggest that he's really not very fond of this country.
I'm not going to dignify this with a response. In fact, why am I even bothering to write this, it doesn't matter. It's so intellectually deficient that clearly nothing I could say would change anything. It was never about an actual decision for this person, they knew they would vote for the GOP candidate regardless of who it was and they were going to accuse the Democratic candidate as being an out of touch anti-American monster. How convenient.
I'm not wild about Obama either, but to suggest that HE's the out of control loony and that Sarah Palin is somehow a moderating voice of reason is pure Conservative Christian identity politics and has nothing to do with those facts she claims to value.
As for abstinence-only sex education: that's a party-line issue so I really can't debate you there, but abstinence-only sex education still contains descriptions and information regarding contraceptives. It may not be presented in the best light, but kids are still given that information. For my part, as a future parent, I really wouldn't want schools telling my children "it's OK to have sex as long as you use a condom." That's MY choice to tell MY children depending on the moral values I decide to emphasize and the risks I would want them to avoid until they're old enough to understand the consequences of their actions. The best way, in my opinion, to present information on contraceptives is objectively - this is what they are, this is how they work, and here are the chances that it will fail or not fail. I'm sure you remember sex ed - we were given abstinence only sex education; I frankly didn't know the difference - they just said that the only way to make sure you don't get pregnant or don't get a disease is to not have sex, and frankly, it's hard to deny the truth in that. I feel that otherwise the government oversteps its boundaries. I raise my children. Not them.
I looked up my districts polices on such matters, and our current sex-education program coverts both sex-ed strategies information. (Also looked-up) But saying DON'T HAVE SEX OR YOU’LL GET SICK AND DIE really doesn’t convince me. It’s like telling a kid smoking is bad and leaving it at that. Personally I find it very hard to believe that the kid will just say ok, and never smoke. Show them statistics, possibly a smokers lung, and I guarantee you that the majority will get the point, and consequences. But seeing as I haven’t taken the sex-ed class yet this is my view given from all the information I have gathered so far.
It's confirmed that Obama has associations with terrorist Bill Ayers. The served on an eight-person board together for an Anti-Poverty program - I'm fairly certain they've talked. Ayers also contributed to Obama's campaign. Ayers is often quoted as saying he wished he'd bombed more US targets than he managed to during his terrorist days - even after 9/11.
*sigh* So they talked, what’s your point? Talking to people doesn’t mean you agree. It doesn’t mean your bestest-buddies-forever. It means you said hi. Possibly discussed the weather. Big whoop. Talking to someone shouldn’t mean you immediately get every label they ever had stuck to you.
I'm not sure if you've seen videos of Obama's pastor, Reverend Wright. If not, it bears a look on YouTube. Wright was Obama's pastor for 20 years - again, confirmed by Obama himself - and performed his marriage ceremony; when the videos surfaced, Obama disowned the pastor, as it was expedient to do so. Wright frequently used phrases such as "Goddamn America" and suggested that the US government introduced the AIDS virus into society as a means of eradicating the black population (again, there's direct evidence via video tape). He is responsible for some of the most vitriolic, anti-American sentiment to ever be spoken in public.
People go to church to feel closer to god. Not to gather opinions on politics. And just because he attended that church doesn’t mean he has the Reverend Wright’s every belief. See my rant on Ayers.
McCain isn't perfect, but considering what he's been through, at least you know he loves America and wouldn't want to see another 9/11.
I disagree, many POW’s came out of there really hating America. Which brings me to my next point: Voting for someone because of a military record is not an informed vote. (Not saying that she is, just saying that I know people who are.) Patriotism won’t fix anything. If it dose, I will never touch another computer in my life.
And again, that isn't hearsay, it's a matter of public record.
Until you have read the entire bill the way it was presented, heard every word the candidate has said on the topic, and have a degree in law, physiology, and politics, it’s all hearsay (and in case my personal definition is off on this one: biased).
I thank you all for taking the time to read my rant. We were having a political discussion at school today, and I have learned that you keep your mouth shut or risk being trampled at my school so I vented here. All just my opinion on things.
This whole conversation started with me saying that Palin scares me. She took it upon herself to defend the McCain/Palin campaign by crapping on Obama.
She said all that? God damn. She's become a walking stereotype Republican.
Edit: I've got a lot of things I want to respond to, but I've got to go do more stuff for work really quick. Maybe I can get on later hopefully.
Regarding Rev. Wright, all I want to say is I really don't like it when rich white people pretend for one fucking instant that they understand what it's like to be poor and black in the US. There is a huge cultural gap between the two, and rich white people have no idea what that life is like. Wright obviously didn't grow up with all his shit handed to him. He either worked for it, or more likely he never got what he wanted in the first place.
I'm not defending what he said. The stuff about the government manufacturing HIV to attack the blacks is a little out there, even for me. But still, life of repression.
Regarding Rev. Wright, all I want to say is I really don't like it when rich white people pretend for one fucking instant that they understand what it's like to be poor and black in the US. There is a huge cultural gap between the two, and rich white people have no idea what that life is like. Wright obviously didn't grow up with all his shit handed to him. He either worked for it, or more likely he never got what he wanted in the first place.
Uh, guys? Obama pals around with terrorists. That's a fact. He wants to eat your children, that's also a fact. Sarah Palin shits gold and rainbows, and plays hockey with our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ on Tuesdays. And John McCain? He single-handedly won the Vietnam war by eating a cheeseburger in a POW camp. I think your choice on election day is pretty obvious.
I won't pretend to know what it's like to be a black in the US, but I know what it's like to live as a minority. I know what it's like to have people charge you more money for goods and services, and to have people to assume you're less intelligent. Parents have forbidden me to be with their daughters because of my race; hell this morning a grandfather and his grandson looked at me and pointed me out as a foreigner in that cutesy babytalk way you might point out a puppy.
I don't get mad at the government, because China and Japan are both countries that pride themselves on their ethnic heritage. If they boasted being a completely open and equal country like the US, well I'd be mad at the hypocricy too. Living as a minority is not the same as a majority. Trust me on this one, I've got some experience as both.
Reverend Wright is also from a generation when blacks were treated very differently. Conditions for blacks have greatly improved, but there is still a long ways to go. For example,there is still a very distinct indirect correllation between the darkness of a black man's skin and his salary. The darker he is the less he earns.
While Reverend Wright is loud and boisterous, he is not alone in these beliefs. There are many blacks around the country who feel like the government still doesn't care about them (New Orleans blacks come to mind). Personally I think it's a good idea to have a President in office who understands these people, because many are still falling through the cracks in society.
I've been wondering why everyone bitches about Palin and seems to forget about McCain. Historically I don't think there are that many VP's that have actually become Presidents. Do people really think McCain is gonna die in less than 4 years?
I mostly agree with Jake on the earlier bit. I'm a little stupefied by such a response even as a bit of a Republican myself.
trace(Obama != terrorist);
//output:true
That said I have other concerns about Obama that have little to do with his character and everything to do with his policy (I don't fully agree about not judging that yet). I shouldn't be going into that this late at night though.
The most important consideration for me, really, is to vote for a third party candidate for Senate and hope that neither Franken or Coleman win. Neither of them deserve it. I still gotta actually look up the third option though to make sure he isn't a bigger nut that just has less advertising money.
You're right, X, in that historically there weren't many VPs to take over their President's term. And the last one to do so was Ford. But, McCain is the oldest Presidential candidate in our history. And he has/had a whole host of health problems, some we know of like the skin cancer, and others that we don't know because he only let a handful of reporters look at his voluminous medical records for about an hour back in the summer. Palin has, in my opinion, a much greater chance at ascending to the Presidency than Cheney or Gore had. Which is why she poisons the entire McCain ticket in my mind.
Uh, guys? Obama pals around with terrorists. That's a fact. He wants to eat your children, that's also a fact. Sarah Palin shits gold and rainbows, and plays hockey with our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ on Tuesdays. And John McCain? He single-handedly won the Vietnam war by eating a cheeseburger in a POW camp. I think your choice on election day is pretty obvious.
I actually really enjoyed the last debate! I laughed a lot, but I also thought they did a better job than the last 2 debates. Which wasn't quite saying much... but still! When Obama told John congratulations for watching the Cowboys game, I laughed a lot... I also laughed at how many times they mentioned good ol' Joe. I don't think they were acting like idiots though, they still communicated their thoughts to the audience. Maybe it's just me?
EDIT: I'm kind of looking forward to what SNL will have to say about Joe the Plumber
-Hmm, still no comments on the Paris video? I thought that would spark some interesting discusion.
-And yes, SNL should be a bog of Rofles.
-I wouldn't be expecting any question answering from any canadate if I were you.
Comments
Because I'm totally a superdelegate, don't worry about it.
Eh, I just think it's a scary time in history. I've gotten in discussions with one of my slightly paranoid liberal friends, and he seems to be very worried of the outcome of America and the war if McCain is elected. I always try to see presidential candidates' true intentions over the political crap they feed the voters, and maybe it's just me, but I get the impression that McCain wants to go gung-ho with this war, toughen up America, and basically introduce the attitude that times are tough, get over complaining about it, fight for what you're living for if it means that much to you, and otherwise we don't need you and won't miss you all that much. Now really, I quite agree with this mindset-- sure, if you're not willing to work for your values, you're not going to work for any other reason and therefore you're not being much help to anyone else around you (including your children). What I'm more worried about is whether America can really handle a transformation that will be so hard to go through, when we're already STARTING at such a low point.
Obama is a little harder to see his true intentions based on just his personality, which is scary in some ways, but actually makes me think that he's a little more honest than McCain. McCain has been losing lots of respect points from me lately by trying a little too hard to get voters... I mean, really; Palin? Oh well. I get the impression from Obama that he really does have a plan in mind, and he really will do whatever it takes to get America in better shape. And it doesn't involve getting rid of some people in the process... at least I don't think it does. Plus Obama seems to deal really well with having to make really quick decisions. So far I've been very impressed with how he's responded to everything thrown at him, while McCain tends to get a little angry at things :-P Obama is a great public speaker, and although you could easily combat that with "Well so was Hitler, look where he led Germany," I don't get the scary Nazi impression from Obama.
Welp... there's one more presidential debate, and then this shit goes down. This is huuuge.
First I'll post my statement:
Well, it's been easy enough for me to just casually say why she scared me, so I didn't really have anything prepared to bring to the debate table. But I'll try to give my reasons why Sarah Palin scares me.
First, let me start by saying that I don't think we can really know with any certainty what any politician will do once in office. Obama panders, McCain panders, all politicians pander during their campaign because they want to pull in votes. So matters of policy, while interesting to me, don't fully inform my decision. Most of what they say is too vague to really make a decision anyway, so I look to what other information I can find.
So, Sarah Palin. I'm sure there's a lot of back and forth on the truth of the following information, but it keeps coming up and it's never been denied, so there must be a grain of truth behind it.
1: 6000 year creationist? Seems like that's her belief, and I really do feel like anyone that focused on religion over scientific inquiry can't be a terribly open-minded person. There's nothing wrong with being Christian; it often promotes an upright morality. But 6000 year creationists are different. They build their entire worldviews on literal interpretation of the Bible, which generally bring a host of other undesirables; intolerance toward homosexuality, a Christian-centric view of right and wrong, good and evil, and a general desire for moral control. It encourages a worldview full of binaries, and I think that thinking in binaries is a really bad way to run a country.
Of course, just speculation and one person's comment about her being a 6000 year creationist isn't really enough. So, let me continue.
2: She apparently is okay with the practice of banning books, and this is one of the most heinous practices in my mind. By being okay with banning books, you're okay with withholding knowledge from people. That's the first step toward thoughtcrime. It may sound idealist, but I really do believe that people should be allowed to consume information from nearly any source. I say nearly because I never like to speak in totality. I also understand the desire to caution children away from certain material, but banning books takes that to a whole new level, and makes me shy away from her.
3: Abstinence-only sex ed? Okay, neither form of sex-education will be perfect. Just like I said: binaries. You're not going to have a perfectly right and perfectly wrong option. But I think abstinence-only is less desirable than sex ed that teaches contraception and responsibility. I don't think that sex should necessarily be just between two married people, and just as in point number 2, I think people should be given information and given the choice of how to act upon that information.
So, big deal, right? These are just a few small areas of policy that she'll probably have no control over. Yes, that's true. However, I don't judge her because she may vote on these policies, but because I believe that her stances on these policies give me crucial insight into her thought patterns. She seems to prefer a country where morality and thought is shaped and controlled into the "right" form, and that form is likely the form dictated by fundamentalist Christianity. And since I am quite opposed to that particular worldview, I think that Sarah Palin is not someone I want in power.
And those are the reasons I feel more confident about... I would also point to her performance at the vice presidential debate and during interviews throughout the past months and point to her lack of ability to consistently string together coherent sentences. Regardless of how smart she really is, she's poised to be the face of America to the world. Do we want a verbal bumbler representing us? Bush has made us look dumb enough with his stumbling speech.
But that reason is only a matter of preference, and I don't think stands as strongly as the others.
Feel free to respond. It is through debate and discussion that our ideas are tempered or reforged, and I fully admit that I may be misguided in some of my ideas.
Well, unfortunately a lot of the things that you mention really stem from hearsay - what a friend of a friend suggests Palin said at one time or another; perhaps I'm taking too much of a legal stance on it, but that generally wouldn't hold up in a court of law. It would be dismissed - and with good reason. Hearsay is, ultimately, the most unreliable form of "evidence."
I do know that when faced with the question of whether to teach creationism or evolution in schools, she is an advocate of teaching both - not JUST creationism nor JUST evolution. I personally do not see a problem with such a thing. Regarding banning books, most of that talk has stemmed from a rumor circulated on the internet attached to a list of books that Palin supposedly banned in 1996. Actually, the list contains several books that had not even been published yet (ex: the Harry Potter books, which started in 1998). It's pretty much an historical list of books that have been banned in the US - not just Alaska - at one time or another. Make of that what you will.
As for abstinence-only sex education: that's a party-line issue so I really can't debate you there, but abstinence-only sex education still contains descriptions and information regarding contraceptives. It may not be presented in the best light, but kids are still given that information. For my part, as a future parent, I really wouldn't want schools telling my children "it's OK to have sex as long as you use a condom." That's MY choice to tell MY children depending on the moral values I decide to emphasize and the risks I would want them to avoid until they're old enough to understand the consequences of their actions. The best way, in my opinion, to present information on contraceptives is objectively - this is what they are, this is how they work, and here are the chances that it will fail or not fail. I'm sure you remember sex ed - we were given abstinence only sex education; I frankly didn't know the difference - they just said that the only way to make sure you don't get pregnant or don't get a disease is to not have sex, and frankly, it's hard to deny the truth in that. I feel that otherwise the government oversteps its boundaries. I raise my children. Not them.
I therefore think that the argument that she wants to shape morality and thought through governmental means is actually incorrect - the ultimate goal of the Republican party is to ensure that morality remains the duty of the PARENTS to instill in their children. While it is difficult for teachers to maintain objectivity in their teaching styles, it's wrong to put in place programs that take the power away from the parents and put it in the hands of the education system. In desiring to teach both creationism and evolution, I think the only thing that can be claimed to be misguided is that Palin doesn't suggest teaching other religions' creation stories as well. Perhaps that's something she didn't think of; perhaps she would be opposed to it. I don't know. But I don't see how it'd be bad to learn both. And book banning? Well. I guess I just don't go on information I can't confirm.
Turning from Sarah Palin for a moment, though - allow me to review your arguments in another way. Let's assume everything you alleged is true. She's a Bible thumping, book-banning, mojo-killing moose hunter. In comparison to how much the real Obama scares me, this characterization of Palin seems tame.
It's confirmed that Obama has associations with terrorist Bill Ayers. The served on an eight-person board together for an Anti-Poverty program - I'm fairly certain they've talked. Ayers also contributed to Obama's campaign. Ayers is often quoted as saying he wished he'd bombed more US targets than he managed to during his terrorist days - even after 9/11.
I'm not sure if you've seen videos of Obama's pastor, Reverend Wright. If not, it bears a look on YouTube. Wright was Obama's pastor for 20 years - again, confirmed by Obama himself - and performed his marriage ceremony; when the videos surfaced, Obama disowned the pastor, as it was expedient to do so. Wright frequently used phrases such as "Goddamn America" and suggested that the US government introduced the AIDS virus into society as a means of eradicating the black population (again, there's direct evidence via video tape). He is responsible for some of the most vitriolic, anti-American sentiment to ever be spoken in public. And Obama was listening to him for a good 20 years. Anti-Americanism may not seem like a big issue but to put it another way... do you really want someone who possibly hates our country, to be running our country? It's a huge issue. McCain isn't perfect, but considering what he's been through, at least you know he loves America and wouldn't want to see another 9/11. I'm very concerned that Obama does not want what's best for America at all, as his associations suggest that he's really not very fond of this country.
Regarding policy issues, it's true you can't go by what they say, but you can go by their voting records. Obama voted in favor of partial-birth abortion. Even your average pro-choicer usually shudders at such a thought. Oh, he also voted against an Illinois bill that would have mandated life-saving treatment for infants who managed to survive partial-birth abortion. The children would be saved and most likely put up for adoption or become a ward of the state. He voted AGAINST that. And again, that isn't hearsay, it's a matter of public record.
Anyways - I'm sure you'll make up your own mind about who to vote for, but I hope you'll at least consider some of the things I've mentioned in your decision. I guess it's a matter of who scares you more - Palin or Obama. For me, it's Obama. No politician is ever perfect (remember the South Park episode on elections? You get to pick from a Turd Sandwich or a Giant Dousche!). At this point it's almost like you're just trying to vote against the other guy.
Let me know if you have any questions or anything or wish to continue our discussion! I have nothing against a debate and hope you don't take my tone as unfriendly (it's not intended to be at all).
Take care dude!
I do know that when faced with the question of whether to teach creationism or evolution in schools, she is an advocate of teaching both - not JUST creationism nor JUST evolution. I personally do not see a problem with such a thing.
Regarding banning books, most of that talk has stemmed from a rumor circulated on the internet attached to a list of books that Palin supposedly banned in 1996. Actually, the list contains several books that had not even been published yet (ex: the Harry Potter books, which started in 1998). It's pretty much an historical list of books that have been banned in the US - not just Alaska - at one time or another. Make of that what you will.
Except, she did ban books from the local library, and fired the librarian over it. (Well, also because she suspected the librarian was politically against her). Just because an email forward was wrong about it doesn't mean the entire allegation is false.
The best way, in my opinion, to present information on contraceptives is objectively - this is what they are, this is how they work, and here are the chances that it will fail or not fail. I'm sure you remember sex ed - we were given abstinence only sex education; I frankly didn't know the difference - they just said that the only way to make sure you don't get pregnant or don't get a disease is to not have sex, and frankly, it's hard to deny the truth in that.
The entire premise of abstinence-only sex ed is the denial of the information that you say is the best method - no mention of condoms or anything, because if you say it, they'll run out and use it, oh no! I don't care about your morals, I care about the kids who are full of hormones in an over-suggestive culture who are being kept ignorant and end up fucking each other anyway. This leads to those dreaded teen pregnancies and abortions that you thought this stupid idea would prevent in the first place. If your kid can't learn about condoms at school without becoming a sex fiend, then your cherished values aren't as strong as you though, eh? Or perhaps that's what its about -- carnal forbearance is lame and you have to tilt the playing field to your unfair advantage.
It's confirmed that Obama has associations with terrorist Bill Ayers. The served on an eight-person board together for an Anti-Poverty program - I'm fairly certain they've talked. Ayers also contributed to Obama's campaign. Ayers is often quoted as saying he wished he'd bombed more US targets than he managed to during his terrorist days - even after 9/11.
...so? Every politician at some point talked to someone that is unsavory. We could find someone really disquieting that has 'talked' to every single Presidential candidate.
I'm not sure if you've seen videos of Obama's pastor, Reverend Wright BLAH BLAH BLAH
He rejected and denounced him, what more do you want?
Anti-Americanism may not seem like a big issue but to put it another way... do you really want someone who possibly hates our country, to be running our country? It's a huge issue. McCain isn't perfect, but considering what he's been through, at least you know he loves America and wouldn't want to see another 9/11. I'm very concerned that Obama does not want what's best for America at all, as his associations suggest that he's really not very fond of this country.
I'm not going to dignify this with a response. In fact, why am I even bothering to write this, it doesn't matter. It's so intellectually deficient that clearly nothing I could say would change anything. It was never about an actual decision for this person, they knew they would vote for the GOP candidate regardless of who it was and they were going to accuse the Democratic candidate as being an out of touch anti-American monster. How convenient.
I'm not wild about Obama either, but to suggest that HE's the out of control loony and that Sarah Palin is somehow a moderating voice of reason is pure Conservative Christian identity politics and has nothing to do with those facts she claims to value.
*sigh* So they talked, what’s your point? Talking to people doesn’t mean you agree. It doesn’t mean your bestest-buddies-forever. It means you said hi. Possibly discussed the weather. Big whoop. Talking to someone shouldn’t mean you immediately get every label they ever had stuck to you.
People go to church to feel closer to god. Not to gather opinions on politics. And just because he attended that church doesn’t mean he has the Reverend Wright’s every belief. See my rant on Ayers.
I disagree, many POW’s came out of there really hating America. Which brings me to my next point: Voting for someone because of a military record is not an informed vote. (Not saying that she is, just saying that I know people who are.) Patriotism won’t fix anything. If it dose, I will never touch another computer in my life.
Until you have read the entire bill the way it was presented, heard every word the candidate has said on the topic, and have a degree in law, physiology, and politics, it’s all hearsay (and in case my personal definition is off on this one: biased).
I thank you all for taking the time to read my rant. We were having a political discussion at school today, and I have learned that you keep your mouth shut or risk being trampled at my school so I vented here. All just my opinion on things.
Also, I know next to nothing about whoever Barack's VP is.
Edit: I've got a lot of things I want to respond to, but I've got to go do more stuff for work really quick. Maybe I can get on later hopefully.
Regarding Rev. Wright, all I want to say is I really don't like it when rich white people pretend for one fucking instant that they understand what it's like to be poor and black in the US. There is a huge cultural gap between the two, and rich white people have no idea what that life is like. Wright obviously didn't grow up with all his shit handed to him. He either worked for it, or more likely he never got what he wanted in the first place.
I'm not defending what he said. The stuff about the government manufacturing HIV to attack the blacks is a little out there, even for me. But still, life of repression.
I'll comment more later. Work stuffs.
Yes.
I won't pretend to know what it's like to be a black in the US, but I know what it's like to live as a minority. I know what it's like to have people charge you more money for goods and services, and to have people to assume you're less intelligent. Parents have forbidden me to be with their daughters because of my race; hell this morning a grandfather and his grandson looked at me and pointed me out as a foreigner in that cutesy babytalk way you might point out a puppy.
I don't get mad at the government, because China and Japan are both countries that pride themselves on their ethnic heritage. If they boasted being a completely open and equal country like the US, well I'd be mad at the hypocricy too. Living as a minority is not the same as a majority. Trust me on this one, I've got some experience as both.
Reverend Wright is also from a generation when blacks were treated very differently. Conditions for blacks have greatly improved, but there is still a long ways to go. For example,there is still a very distinct indirect correllation between the darkness of a black man's skin and his salary. The darker he is the less he earns.
While Reverend Wright is loud and boisterous, he is not alone in these beliefs. There are many blacks around the country who feel like the government still doesn't care about them (New Orleans blacks come to mind). Personally I think it's a good idea to have a President in office who understands these people, because many are still falling through the cracks in society.
I mostly agree with Jake on the earlier bit. I'm a little stupefied by such a response even as a bit of a Republican myself.
trace(Obama != terrorist);
//output:true
That said I have other concerns about Obama that have little to do with his character and everything to do with his policy (I don't fully agree about not judging that yet). I shouldn't be going into that this late at night though.
The most important consideration for me, really, is to vote for a third party candidate for Senate and hope that neither Franken or Coleman win. Neither of them deserve it. I still gotta actually look up the third option though to make sure he isn't a bigger nut that just has less advertising money.
This is his second term. Learn his name already, Adam, you ignorant malt liquor drinkin' hobo.
Don't smash on me if you don't like it, you clicked the link. ...Well you could smash on me, but you know, refrain.
Anyone know who Joe the Plumber is? Is he Bob the Builder’s cousin or something?
You now make upwards of a quarter million dollars, and yet you are somehow still main street.
Jeez, McCain must feel stupid now.
EDIT: I'm kind of looking forward to what SNL will have to say about Joe the Plumber
-And yes, SNL should be a bog of Rofles.
-I wouldn't be expecting any question answering from any canadate if I were you.