Democrats & Liberals Archives

McCain Insults Women

One would think that choosing a woman for a running mate would be a compliment to woman. Only the McCain campaign could turn it into an insult. McCain surprises, but is Palin ready? See also: Sarah Palin and Feminists for Life

First, the assumption is that women are stupid enough to vote for a woman just because she is a woman. Men might be stupid enough to vote for a man simply because he is a man. Scientists have proven that testosterone is toxic to brain tissue. Your wife has known that all along – ask her. But women are not that stupid. They are a little more sophisticated. They would love to see a woman President – a woman President that would make them proud – a woman who is equal to the task.

But the insult is deeper than that - much deeper.

McCain wants us to believe that the most qualified woman he can find is a small town mayor who managed to become a small state governor 2 years ago? Clearly Sarah Palin is a nice lady. I like her. She reminds me of a nice lady that I know who works at Paneras. But come on... What happened to Condi Rice? She has a resume. It is all bad, but she has a resume. She has walked in the halls of power. She has held positions of awesome responsibility. She has been forged in the fires of national crisis. She has been an abysmal failure. Much of her failure belongs to the failed regime that she has been a part of. MCCain may not have wanted to tie himself to the Bush regime but he has tied himself to that failed regime anyhow by selling out his “maverick” status and supporting Bush 95% of the time in order to endear himself to the neo-cons. So… why not Condi?
Condi is no good because she has tied herself to the neo-cons. She has failed but she has failed at jobs that would make my colon spastic. No one could argue that she is not prepared to be President. We could and would argue that her policies would be wrong for America. We would be correct. Whether one agreed with her policies or not, the fact is she is ready to assume the reins of power. Obama is ready to assume the reins of power also. He has proven his readiness through his judgment and political courage. Of course Hillary, McCain, and Biden are also ready to assume the reins of power. MCCain would be a disaster because of his policies, but he is ready to take power. Condi would also be a disaster, but she is ready to assume power. She would not crumble in the face of the awesome responsibility.

McCain wants women to believe that the best woman he could find is small town mayor that made good and hit the big time in a little state. This nice lady might be fine. I know that nice lady that works at Paneras – has 4 kids – real nice. I think she would fine too. Lets elect her…

Posted by Ray Guest at August 29, 2008 10:01 PM
Comments
Comment #260270

Dismissing Sarah Palin like I am hearing is going to be a huge mistake. She has a short but quality record as a mayor and a governor. The Dems are the ones insulting women by their knee-jerk reaction, somehow using a different standard for Governor Palin than Senator Obama. Everyone who knows her, Dems-who-know-her, included are saying she is a tough solid Governor who is very popular. Keep it up Dems and your cred will sink with all voters.

Posted by: Tom Besly at August 29, 2008 10:33 PM
Comment #260274

“First, the assumption is that women are stupid enough to vote for a woman just because she is a woman.”

Do you mean like 90% of blacks voting for BHO simply because he is black? Are you saying blacks are stupid?

I heard a news commentator from one of the major “progressive” news channels a week ago advising McCain to pick Liberman as his VP. So he could reach out to the “dis-infranchised” moderate Democrats and the democratic pundants agreed. If Liberman was the answer, why didn’t BHO pick him? If Rice is so good, why did’nt OHB pick Her?

Only time will tell, but I believe the left column will be spending their time attacking and insulting McCain and Palin for the next four years.

Posted by: Oldguy at August 29, 2008 10:46 PM
Comment #260287

R.G., like you said, she’s a nice lady. I like her too. The Rpblcns have not had much of a history with picking overly qualified VP candidates. In fact some of the best ones were the ones that lost. Maybe that’s what they learned. Nixon, Agnew, GHWBush, Quayle, and Cheney were all VPs on tickets that assumed office. When it became clear that Nixon was going to leave office, they sandbagged Agnew and brought Ford in. Lodge, Dole, and Kemp were VP choices that didn’t help. On the Democratic side, Humphrey, Mondale and Gore didn’t advance after serving as VP.

Posted by: ohrealy at August 29, 2008 11:24 PM
Comment #260300

It is clear to me that Palin will drop out of the race as soon as it appears that Mcain is a “maverick” by picking her. He will then simply announce or nominate a new canidate that will appear more qualified and the media will jump on it. Miers for Roberts anyone? If the Americam public is willing to fall for these Rovian antics AGAIN then it doessn’t deserve the democracy it claims to cherish.

Posted by: Tom at August 30, 2008 12:25 AM
Comment #260310
Do you mean like 90% of blacks voting for BHO simply because he is black? Are you saying blacks are stupid?

Excellent response. But it’s not just blacks. Why would ANYBODY who bases their support on experience, skills, and qualifications support Barack Obama? If Obama were not black, he’d be nowhere. Ray seems to be saying that the entire Democratic party has not only proven itself stupid but insulted blacks.

Posted by: Loyal Opposition at August 30, 2008 12:55 AM
Comment #260314

Ray claims that “Obama is ready to assume the reins of power also. He has proven his readiness through his judgment and political courage.”

Laughing out loud.

No accomplishments, no achievements, no substance. Simply vague abstractions like “judgment” and “courage” which mean nothing more than “I agree with Obama.”

Posted by: Loyal Opposition at August 30, 2008 1:16 AM
Comment #260318

McCain picked Palin in a misguided tack to the right. Her extreme stances on abortion, creationism in public schools, global warming, etc., will alienate anyone who admired Clinton and will repulse any moderates. A few days on prime time news shows is going to expose it all. Even her touted stance against the “Bridge to Nowhere” is bogus - she was for it before she was against it.

The most disturbing aspect of this pick is that it highlights McCain’s poor judgement. Do we need 4 more years of someone making ill-informed choices that seem to be made without intelligence or deliberation?

Posted by: pianofan at August 30, 2008 1:47 AM
Comment #260321

You seem to forget that the Reps know what we know they don’t know! You got’em now!

Pathetic. Nominating a woman, this is good strategy. Something I want to see in a President. Something we have not had in our previous President.

Those mothers that were left wingers until they decided to contribute a family to society are going to give this a hard look. Do they go to the social government they pushed when they were single and childless?

Or do they go for the government that recognizes that success comes from ones self … not from rules that force someone to be themselves.

Posted by: Honest at August 30, 2008 2:57 AM
Comment #260323

Do you mean like 90% of blacks voting for BHO simply because he is black? Are you saying blacks are stupid?

No. This is more like if McCain picked someone that were black with absolutely no experience and bizarre views, like Alan Keyes, over every other experienced black candidate, like say Condi, in an obvious attempt to get the black vote.

For that matter, why didn’t he pick Condi?

Anyway, Obama has spent the last two years in a gruelling campaign showing voters his character, his judgement, his vision, and laying out his plan. He beat Clinton for a reason, not just dumb luck. Palin has in no way proved herself worthy of office, and there’s no time to find out if she has innate skills.

Posted by: Max at August 30, 2008 3:21 AM
Comment #260326

I still say that McPain has a gall picking a woman as an advisor, helpmate, head-banger, when he giggles when someone calls one of his rivals a bit*h and when he refers to his own wife as a c*nt. How much of a vice president would she be even if they are elected? I know the VP position in the past has been a throw-away office, but in more recent times they have had to actually fill a need. This country is too complex and the world too threatening to be handed over to a b*tch or a cu*t.

Posted by: Marysdude at August 30, 2008 7:16 AM
Comment #260329

Ray:

By accomplishments, she is more qualified for the Presidency than Senator Obama. So is Ambassador Keyes(whom I voted for in the primaries eight years ago) and Secretary Rice.

I love how many on the left laugh and ridicule minorities because they are conservative. Let’s face it, were she liberal, she would be heralded as being great. IMHO it is refreshing to see a canidate that is pro life, and lived her conviction not her convienence. IMHO that alone makes her more qualified than most running for office.

Posted by: submarinesforever at August 30, 2008 7:38 AM
Comment #260330

I have a hard time believing that Palin was the best, most qualified person the GOP could come up with. Then again, they are woefully short of talent these days - kind of look like the Dems in the 80s when we were struggling for a quality leader. From what I have heard McCain only met her once. From this one meeting he knew that she was the right choice? It seems like a very impulsive, desperate decision from someone who wants us to trust him to make the tough decisions. When Obama questioned his temperament to be president this is exactly what he was talking about. If his first decision as future CIC is to make an impulsive, defensive decision it does not bode well for McCain’s judgment.

subs4ever - Condi Rice isn’t qualified to be president at all. She has been the lead on one foreign policy blunder after another. She has lied to the American people. She has supported torture, supported tossing out the Constitution, and supported the worst president in US history. So don’t give me that crap that she is more qualified than Obama. Alan Keys isn’t even close - I don’t think I need to elaborate on him.

Palin, from what I understand is a creationist, not that believing that god dropped people on this planet in our current form is a disqualifier for the office, nor believing that the earth is 6,000 years old is either. But being in the denial of a fact in the face of overwhelming evidence is not a good sign of her judgment. We need our leadership to embrace science in the 21st century not to be in denial of science. We have had that for 8 years and it has been a big setback.

What Hillary supporter wants to see Roe v. Wade overturned? How many women want to be paid less for the same work? How many mothers want to be on their own with health care? Why would a progressive woman support this ticket? What do they have to offer? Not much. If you are a conservative woman that is another story entirely, but there is nothing that the McCain/Palin ticket offers progressives of either gender.

My wife is a Hillary supporter and has been hesitant to embrace Obama, she was ticked off that she was not at least offered the VP spot publicly. She is insulted by McCain trying to pander to her with this pick. There is a 0% chance that Palin will change her mind about how she will vote this year.

Posted by: tcsned at August 30, 2008 8:39 AM
Comment #260334

tcsned,
Ask your wife to open her mind just for a little while to hear what Sarah has to say. Everyone rejected Barack at first until they heard him talk. The zero word has been used in error often recently and should be a caution flag for everyone who actually listens and thinks about politics. Of course if you are just debating….never mind.

Posted by: Tom Besly at August 30, 2008 8:54 AM
Comment #260339

Tcsned:

If you will note, My statement is,”By accomplishments, she is more qualified for the Presidency than Senator Obama. So is Ambassador Keyes(whom I voted for in the primaries eight years ago) and Secretary Rice.”. In your response, you did not even address achievements but rather resorted to the “politics of personal destruction”, attacking all three on beliefs systems and policy decisions. Now these are fair game and very important in the equasion as to which canidate to support, but compare apples to apples. The question is qualification based on accomplishment.

To compare one of the beliefs and policy decisions side by side, Governor Palin believes that life begins at conception and at that point has the right to life; she has acted on that belief. Senator Obama believes that the baby does not have the right to life after it is born and he has acted on that belief.

Posted by: submarinesforever at August 30, 2008 9:43 AM
Comment #260340

Tom,
What does she have to say about a woman’s right to choose - even in the case of incest or rape? What does she have to say about the war in Iraq? What does she have to say about tax cuts for billionaires and oil companies? What does she have to say about indiscriminate torture and wiretapping? What does she have to say about universal health care? What does she have to say about gay marriage?

What I am getting at is that just because she is a woman doesn’t cut it, she doesn’t stand for anything that Hillary stood for. The only thing Palin and Clinton have in common is gender. My wife was excited that a woman candidate had a real chance to win - but it is a combination of gender and policy not just gender.

Posted by: tcsned at August 30, 2008 9:45 AM
Comment #260341

Your questions are good ones. I say listen before you make up your mind. Not to distortions (there has been a great deal of misinformation out there) listen to Sarah. It is the year of the Democrats. Don’t be like Hillary and blow it by failing to listen to the pre-judged “lightweight”.

Posted by: Tom Besly at August 30, 2008 9:51 AM
Comment #260344

Tom B

Most people are listening to Palin. Until there are some clear defining substantial attributes to indicate that she is indeed seasoned and knowledgeable enough to step into the office of POTUS, she will be viewed as a token pick. I don’t want to hear how nice she is. I want to know that she understands the workings of this world and has the intellect, knowledge, insight, mental capacity, understanding, recognition, compromise, diplomacy and tenacity to deal with world affairs. At this point no one knows these things with any degree of certainty. Her experience to date with respect to the national level can be compared with that of a little league game to the world series. The repubs have only a few months to convince 300 million Americans through a process that usually requires years of vetting.

The fact that she is a creationist puts her way out of the normal reign of acceptance with regard to national politics. Just being likable and assertive is not enough. The world has much to learn about this impulsive knee jerk pick by McCain. It will also tell much about his judgmental abilities. At this current time her selection does not speak well for him.

Posted by: RickIL at August 30, 2008 10:36 AM
Comment #260345

tcsned said “I have a hard time believing that Palin was the best, most qualified person the GOP could come up with”.
Imagine the surprise of Conservatives that Obama is the best the Dems. could do.

Posted by: t-bone at August 30, 2008 10:36 AM
Comment #260346

t-bone

Obama has been on the national scene for at least four years. He also had quite a lot of visibility prior to that at the state level. We have had years to do the vetting and form opinion. That can not be said of this person. She is a relative unknown to probably 99% of Americans.

Posted by: RickIL at August 30, 2008 10:44 AM
Comment #260350

Rick,
You make my point. If at least some people had not listened to the rhetoric dismissing Barack he would not have gotten his chance. Hillary complained bitterly that Barack had not been vetted. Hillary and Joe stated clearly he was not qualified. Like in the case of Barack too many people, this column included, are dismissing Governor Palin before she is heard.

Posted by: Tom Besly at August 30, 2008 11:07 AM
Comment #260351

At least she has more executive experience than McCain, Obama and Biden combined.

Posted by: KAP at August 30, 2008 11:09 AM
Comment #260358

Tom Besly,

I am not applying a different standard to her than Obama. Her resume is much shallower. She is like MCCain. She does have some good creds - fighting Republicans. I like her. She is not ready to assume the reins of power although she might do fine anyhow. My Paneras friend might do fine too. I don’t want “might”. She also has corruption and anti-women baggage.

oldguy,

You wrote:

Do you mean like 90% of blacks voting for BHO simply because he is black? Are you saying blacks are stupid?
Blacks are voting for a great candidate who has the creds to make them proud. Obama has decades more experience than she does and a proven track record of exercising good judgment in matters of war and peace. His policies are in alignment with the policies that blacks support. Her policy is to government the legal right to effectively rape women by forcefully taking control of their reproductive organs. Fetuses have a right to life. Germs have a right to life. I am a full blown human being. I have a right to life. No one is obligated to provide the services of their body, to breathe in my mouth if I can not live on my own. No one is obligated to give me a kidney. No one is obligated to sacrifice their health to keep alive. Many people would make a human moral choice to give me these gifts to keep me alive - but they don’t have to. A woman should not have to either - period. It should be her choice - a gift freely given - not governmental rape. Sarah Palin wants the government to rape women.

All,

Thanks for your comments. I am traveling and don’t have time to catch up with the rest of you.

Posted by: Ray Guest at August 30, 2008 11:48 AM
Comment #260360

I just don’t understand how so many are relating title to experience!! All the points have been made already about the number of people she governs, the substance of issues she deals with. Already, by her own admission and now public knowledge, she hasn’t “had time” to pay much attention to the war in Iraq. Now, you can jump on that and say that she would have advisors that know all about and could “advise” her. If you were to do that, you would also be blatantly hyporcritical for reversing yourselves after having attacked Obama for relying on people to help him.
There seems to be many questionable instances of impropriety falling out now about some of her actions. Funny how the old adage of “what’s good for the goose, is good for the gander”, seems to be unacceptable by those on the right now.
I don’t want the business of running this country suddenly falling into the hands of someone, whether black, white, male, female, red, green or blue, who has such minimal applied experience. Governing the last outpost and the U.S. of A. …..BIG difference !

Posted by: janedoe at August 30, 2008 11:56 AM
Comment #260366

Sarah Palin hasn’t been properly vetted. Within two weeks this will blow up in the GOP’s face. It’s a disastrous pick for McCain.

A long, national campaign and its series of state primaries exposes a presidential candidate to the full extent of the opposition’s critical eye.

Sarah Palin, until recently the mayor of Wasilla, Alaska, has not received that kind of examination.

She was appointed and spent one year on a commission. No critical examination there.

She lost an election for Lieutenant Governor. No critical examination there, unless you conclude that Alaskans rejected her for a good reason.

She won the Alaskan governorship by defeating an incumbent with an 18% approval rating. Very little, if any, critical examination there.

After a mere 20 months as governor, she is under investigation for firing the public safety commisioner in a scandal known as “troopergate.”

A handful of McCain campaign staffers conducted a secret vetting process. This is not the same as the kind of microscopic examination a national candidate experiences in the primary process.

The nomination of Sarah Palin is a stupid move of dumbfounding proportions. Check with me in two weeks, and I will be happy to say “I told you so.”

Posted by: phx8 at August 30, 2008 12:27 PM
Comment #260367

Often cited as a credential of experience for Obama on this blog is his successful campaign against Hillary. This is akin to eating the heart of the slain lion to gain his power. The thinking goes something like this. In besting Hillary by a few thousand primary votes Obama not only wins the nomination but also inherits her political skill, wisdom and readiness to be president. This faulty logice assumes that one is made better by those he/she defeats.

And, by winning, some say Obama has proven his readiness to be president. What winning the nomination actually proves is that the winner has convinced enough people to vote for him or her and…nothing else. What experience has the winner gained that is valuable in governing? Does the process of winning enhance or change the core values and beliefs of the winner? I think not. The winning candidate emerges from the contest with the same personal and political beliefs with which they entered. Does the mere running for public office and winning, in and of itself, make the candidate ready to assume that office?

Posted by: Jim M at August 30, 2008 12:35 PM
Comment #260368

phx8,
You may be in the same imbarasing position and have the company of the Hillary people that used the same words on Barack early in the primary.

Posted by: Tom Besly at August 30, 2008 12:39 PM
Comment #260370

phx8,

The trooper in “troopergate” still has his job. Some firing.

Posted by: Lee Jamison at August 30, 2008 12:57 PM
Comment #260371

Palin will prove an excellent pick despite what the Barry crowd will say.

She is one tough cookie…and most importantly, she has galvanized the conservative Christian segment, which has been luke warm at best thus far.

As far as experience, she has more executive experience than either Barry or Joe, collectively they have none.

She has been governor for 2 years of a state. barry has ran for president for the 2 years since he has been a senator. I wonder if he has found out where the Senate men’s room is, for Pete’s sake.

She has excellent crededtials as an energy guru, which neither Barry or Joe have. She is a life long member of the NRA, which means the Second Amendment crowd will be on board. She appeals to mom’s who have children that are “special”. She is a heroic figure, and I bet she can even beat Barry from 3 point land.

Plus, she is easy on the eyes..at least easy on the Eagle’s eyes for sure.

She has already tipped Alaske and those 3 electoral votes. Mitt will still get Michigan, and that will be it.

Meanwhile, they will now take on Barry and Joe on the war square on.

Posted by: sicilian eagle at August 30, 2008 1:00 PM
Comment #260372

Jim,
Winning a fair election/primary to me means the winner was the best candidate. The assumption I have seen to be the most accurate (although not perfect) is that the collective wisdom is more often wiser than individual wisdom. I am not an academic but this idea is well documented and the basis of democracy.

Posted by: Tom Besly at August 30, 2008 1:01 PM
Comment #260373

JimM

The winning candidate emerges from the contest with the same personal and political beliefs with which they entered. Does the mere running for public office and winning, in and of itself, make the candidate ready to assume that office?

It is what we take away from that process that causes one to determine credibility, ability and if that person truly represents a better portion of their values. Obama has been in this race for 19 months. Sarah Palin has been in it for 1 day. Hardly enough time to make a reasoned assessment.

Posted by: RickIL at August 30, 2008 1:07 PM
Comment #260374

Eagle

Meanwhile, they will now take on Barry and Joe on the war square on.

A war she has admitted to knowing little about. We are still in square one. The vetting process. It will not be accomplished over night. She may very well be a good candidate, but that is with respect to the little time left, eons away from being determined at this point.

Posted by: RickIL at August 30, 2008 1:13 PM
Comment #260388

Lee,
The trooper has his job. The public safety commisioner was the object of unethical pressures.

And has it occurred to any McCain supporters that they know next to nothing about Palin’s husband? There is a very good reason for not nominating unvetted unknowns to prominent positions. Remember Harriet Miers? Bernie Kerik?

I give this two weeks to blow up; enough time for the GOP convention to drop out of the news cycle, along with Hurricanes Gustaf and Hannah, and enough time for a real, critical vetting by the opposition to take place.

Posted by: phx8 at August 30, 2008 2:48 PM
Comment #260395

Rick1l

I said “they”,and no one looks better than McCain as a backer of the surge, which the Dems do not acknowledge did any good. It is laughable.

Say what you want about the president, but the magic number in this election is now “Zero”

Zero is the number of attacks in America since 9/11

Zero is the number of nukes in Libya.

Zero is the number of times Barry worked across the aisle.

Zero is the number of tax increases under Bush

Zero is Barry’s executive experience

Zero is the chances of the enemy winning in Iraq despite Reid’s, Murtha’s, Dean’s, Kennedy’s Kerry’s, and Barry’s all saying we should withdraw now.

Almost zero is the amount of money Barry send to his half brother in Africa who lives on $1.00 a month.

Almost zero is Barry’s judgement when he hung around Wright, Reszo, and Ayers.

Zero is the ability of Barry to think without a teleprompter.

This weeks the gloves come off and the Eagle is locked and loaded.

Ray

Your post is silly. This woman is a champion and you can’t believe that McCain can think outside the box. Let’s see in a couple weeks as America gets to know her.

Posted by: sicilian eagle at August 30, 2008 4:32 PM
Comment #260396

One interesting rumor is already floating around about Sarah Palin. Her last baby is not her own; it is her oldest daughter’s child.

What makes this interesting is that, if true, then Palin lied about being the mother, and went through a charade of pretending to deliver early. All this occurred while she was serving as Governmor.

It brings up a whole host of additional questions. But I won’t even go there, except to point out that this is what happens when an unvetted, unqualified candidate is suddenly subjected to scrutiny.

I give Sarah Palin two weeks. By mid-September she will be toast. I told you so.

Posted by: phx8 at August 30, 2008 4:51 PM
Comment #260397
One interesting rumor is already floating around about Sarah Palin. Her last baby is not her own; it is her oldest daughter’s child.

Floating around liberal hate-sites maybe.

You know, I’ve heard some rumors too. That Obama is a closet Muslim, a former drug-dealer, that he attended the church of an America-hating pastor for 20 years, and that he has fathered a number of children out of wedlock. The only difference between this rumor and the rumors about Obama is that the Palin rumor (that Palin lied to protect her daughter) doesn’t involve something reprehensible.

Posted by: Loyal Opposition at August 30, 2008 5:04 PM
Comment #260400

Oh ya, there it is….the double standard. Schoolground logic…neeener neeeener !
You know, I’m actually starting to relax and enjoy this a bit now. Guess I should really say “way to go McCain, and thanks for the boost!!”
And this gal is creating more spins than my Maytag. She wears fur in her photos, hunts Grizzly and Polar bear (which are both considered endangered) and hunts moose from a helicopter. Hell of a sense of fairness and respect for the law.
Pass the popcorn, please, this is starting to get good !

Posted by: janedoe at August 30, 2008 5:35 PM
Comment #260401

LO,
If the rumor is true- and I’ve seen enough and read enough to believe it is true, but to be clear, at this point it still qualifies as a rumor- if it is true, then it does involve something reprehensible.

First, the sitting governor of a state lied to her constituents about absenting herself from work. Second, she seems to be fine with a morality which tells other people to practice abstinence and not to get abortions, but when it comes to her family, she does not demand her daughter accept responsibility, marry the father, and raise the child; instead, she engages in an elaborate charade, and allows her daughter to evade the moral responsibility of parenthood which Sarah Palin so easily saddles others with; and you know, we haven’t even begun to address the issue of who is the real father.

The Palin rumor… The daughter disappeared for over 5 months from school with “infectious mono”… Sarah Palin does not show signs of pregnancy until the seventh month (and this is her fifth child), and no one who works with her knows she is pregnant. It comes as a surprise to everyone. She delivers a 6.2 pound baby a month early, under highly suspicious circumstances- she insists on finishing delivery of a speech even as she claims to be leeking amniotic fluid, at which point she boards a plane, and after the landing she drives 45 minutes to a doctor outside Wasilla. Three days after delivery she returns to work.

Sure. It’s possible this is just a rumor. So we’ll find out the truth soon.

But this is what happens when you make a surprise announcement and introduce an inadequately vetted, unqualified candidate.

Deal with it.

Posted by: phx8 at August 30, 2008 5:40 PM
Comment #260402

I took this from another blogsite….

Killing wolf pups (3+ / 0-)
Recommended by:VA Gal, greenearth, Blue Waters Run Deep
One of those links references the slaughter of 14 wolf puppies.

A quote from the Defenders of Wildlife article:

“The Governor is overstepping her legal authority by offering cash payments for each wolf killed by aerial gunners,” stated Tom Banks, Defenders of Wildlife’s Alaska Associate. “That’s a bounty by anyone’s standards regardless of what they call it.”

Hoping to boost the number of wolves killed this year by permitees, Palin announced the state would pay $150 for each kill….

The state’s press release, issued last Wednesday, indicates that “Permittees will be paid $150 when they bring in the left forelegs of wolves taken from any of several designated control areas.”

Emphasis mine.

This is reprehensible. Slaughtering wolves from State funded (taxpayers) helicopters. Typical in-your-face Republican.

“The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing.” Edmund Burke

Posted by: janedoe at August 30, 2008 5:50 PM
Comment #260403

and this…don’t get up and go to the frig before it’s over…the end is a hoot!

http://dailykos.com/story/2008/8/29/11757/7150/175/578516

Posted by: janedoe at August 30, 2008 5:52 PM
Comment #260404

And the most horrible thing of all is that, in the back of your mind, you know I’m right.

There have been a lot of scurrilous rumors surrounding Obama. But that’s what a long primary campaign resolves. The rumors are proven, or put to rest.

With Sarah Palin, there is less than 70 days, and answers to questions will start coming in to the pregnancy rumor and other issues as well…

According to Alaskan polls, the citizens there think Palin lied about Troopergate. What really happened?

Why did she tell the McCain campaign she only had one house, when she actually had three houses?

Where does her money come from?

You don’t know. Hey, maybe everyting will be ok, eh? Is that a fine sheen of sweat breaking out on your brow?

Posted by: phx8 at August 30, 2008 5:53 PM
Comment #260405

One interesting rumor is already floating around about Sarah Palin. Her last baby is not her own; it is her oldest daughter’s child.
What makes this interesting is that, if true, then Palin lied about being the mother, and went through a charade of pretending to deliver early. All this occurred while she was serving as Governmor.
It brings up a whole host of additional questions. But I won’t even go there, except to point out that this is what happens when an unvetted, unqualified candidate is suddenly subjected to scrutiny.

Just… WOW!
You could put Rove, Cheney and Nixon in the same room and even they couldn’t come up with an attack that’s this off the wall!
The Democratic smear machine is turned up to 11. When Dems have nothing to attack with, they always resort to hateful vitriolic filth! It NEVER fails, especially if the Republicans run a candidate that’s black or a woman.
Are you guys really stupid enough to think that these attacks won’t backfire on Obama?
I give OBAMA two weeks, phx8. The kind of hateful attacks we’ve seen in the past day and a half fly in the face of every claim Obama has made about “change.” He may have “officially” toned it down a bit in the campaign, but he’s obviously got plenty of supports doing his dirty work.

Posted by: Republicwin at August 30, 2008 6:01 PM
Comment #260406

Phx8, what you’re saying is laughable.

Palin didn’t show signs of pregnancy for the first six months—fine. So when she did start showing those signs, what does that signify to you?

Apparently you haven’t been around many pregnant women. Some show dramatically early, some don’t.

You’ve read a completely unsupported blog post on the Daily Kos (the origin of this fairy tale) and know you’ve “heard and seen enough to believe it’s true.”

In this day and age, teen pregnancy is not such a big deal that a mother—much less one who is the sitting governor of a state—-is going to fake a pregnancy to cover it up. Not to mention the doctors and hospital staff who would need to participate in such an elaborate and pointless ruse. The evidence you offer that any such thing ever happened is a joke.

There’s much less evidence for this rumor than—for example—the rumor that Obama is a Muslim. Why haven’t you “heard and seen enough” to believe that’s true? Oh yeah, because the Obamessiah is a far left Democrat who shares your views. You’re not willing to believe truths about him, so why not believe lies about others?

Posted by: Loyal Opposition at August 30, 2008 6:06 PM
Comment #260407

janedoe,

Do you really think that’s not a good question? After all, if the President doesn’t die and the Senate doesn’t tie a vote, the VP doesn’t really have any official duties. Don’t you think it might be a good idea to find out what the president wants you to do in the meantime?

Of course Biden didn’t have to ask. He’d have been running the country for the guy who couldn’t even figure out how many states there are.

Posted by: Republicwin at August 30, 2008 6:09 PM
Comment #260408

Palin didn’t show signs of pregnancy for the first six months—fine. So when she did start showing those signs, what does that signify to you?
Apparently you haven’t been around many pregnant women. Some show dramatically early, some don’t.

Don’t be too hard on him. A lot of libs have never heard of a pregnancy lasting as long as six months!

Posted by: Republicwin at August 30, 2008 6:18 PM
Comment #260410
Do you really think that’s not a good question? After all, if the President doesn’t die and the Senate doesn’t tie a vote, the VP doesn’t really have any official duties. Don’t you think it might be a good idea to find out what the president wants you to do in the meantime?
Are you serious? The woman is a ditz. Posted by: janedoe at August 30, 2008 6:26 PM
Comment #260411
Do you really think that’s not a good question? After all, if the President doesn’t die and the Senate doesn’t tie a vote, the VP doesn’t really have any official duties. Don’t you think it might be a good idea to find out what the president wants you to do in the meantime?
Are you serious? The woman is a ditz. Posted by: janedoe at August 30, 2008 6:28 PM
Comment #260412

Republicwin, LO
This is what happens when you put an insufficiently vetted candidate in the national spotlight.

Surprise!

There is a good reason not to do stupid things like nominating an unknown for VP. Now the GOP is stuck with Sarah Palin, and the digging by the opposition has started. And not just the opposition is digging, either. You can bet the National Enquirer and just about every sleazy rag in the world will go after the story of the Palin pregnancy, just like they went after John Edwards and his love child.

Remember how bad that story got at the end? How reporters chased Edwards, and harrassed him? Remember how Republicans gloated?

Well, the shoe is on the other foot.

They’ll be coming for Sarah Palin now. Enjoy the consequences of nominating an unvetted unknown!

Deal with it.

Posted by: phx8 at August 30, 2008 6:29 PM
Comment #260413

The pregnancy thing sounds like a soap opera script.

Posted by: ohrealy at August 30, 2008 6:29 PM
Comment #260414

sorry for the double post….didn’t confirm the first one.

Posted by: janedoe at August 30, 2008 6:30 PM
Comment #260415

sorry for the double post….didn’t confirm the first one.

Posted by: janedoe at August 30, 2008 6:33 PM
Comment #260416

phx8,

You can’t just make up stuff and say that it’s improper vetting! Are you saying that McCain was supposed to know in advance what smears you people were going to make up?

Janedoe,

You double post an apology for double posting and then try to call a woman with more years of political accomplishment than Obama can even dream of a ditz? Nice try.

Posted by: Republicwin at August 30, 2008 6:40 PM
Comment #260417
This is what happens when you put an insufficiently vetted candidate in the national spotlight.
Enjoy the consequences of nominating an unvetted unknown!

Hot air and bizarre internet-rumors are not “consequences.” And Palin certainly WAS vetted… perhaps not by the Daily Kos and yourself, but that’s not Palin’s problem. I sense a lot of desperation in those who are tossing out such ridiculous and unbelievable nonsense.

The consequences will be reserved for the hate-filled liberals who attempt to smear an honorable and accomplished woman with absurd rumors and innuendos.. and all for daring to stand with McCain in the path of their lord and savior, his Holiness Barack Obama.

If you’re concerned about being “vetted,” there are entire YEARS of Obama’s biography that are unaccounted for. A suspicious mind like yours might wonder if he wasn’t training at an Al Qaida camp in Afghanistan… that is, if he were a Republican instead of a socialist Democrat.

Posted by: Loyal Opposition at August 30, 2008 6:40 PM
Comment #260418

LO & Republicwin,
Don’t know much about pregnancy, do you? Women show their pregnancies more in subsequent pregnancies, not less. Furthermore, a Downs pregnancy can by extremely traumatic. I’m sorry to say I know much more about that topic than I care to discuss. Most Downs pregnancies spontaneously miscarry, and most others are terminated by abortion- but of the Downs children actually born, many require a lot of medical care after birth. It’s a horrendous thing to deal with. Yet Sarah Palin gave birth to a Downs child and went back to work three days later?

It’s possible. But I don’t believe it.

Posted by: phx8 at August 30, 2008 6:46 PM
Comment #260419

The consequences will be reserved for the hate-filled liberals who attempt to smear an honorable and accomplished woman with absurd rumors and innuendos.. and all for daring to stand with McCain in the path of their lord and savior, his Holiness Barack Obama.

Exactly. Their attempt at damage control is doing more and more damage. Once they figured out that attacks on “lack of” experience (also baseless btw; she’s been in politics since ‘92) could be turned right around on Obama, they decided to take aim at her family. Do they not know that the Republicans are going to use all these hateful attacks as talking points for the convention?

Posted by: Republicwin at August 30, 2008 6:53 PM
Comment #260420

Eagle

This weeks the gloves come off and the Eagle is locked and loaded

Zero minus is the total accumulated worth of eight years of Bush policy.

Good luck with your hunting excursion. Maybe you and dead eye Dick Cheney can get together and do a little liberal hunting. ;-)

Posted by: RickIL at August 30, 2008 6:54 PM
Comment #260421

With an enormous hurricane bearing down on the Gulf Coast, the chances of the GOP convention being delayed are increasing. The juxtaposition of Bush addressing cheering Republicans even as citizens flee for their lives from the storm is a bit unseemly.

It may give Republicans a chance to kill the Palin VP nomination before the situation gets any worse. That would give McCain a chance to nominate an adequately vetted candidate during the convention. It will be hard to recover from such a gross misstep, but it would be better than living with her as the VP going into November.

Posted by: phx8 at August 30, 2008 7:04 PM
Comment #260422

phx8,

Do realize how silly the stuff you’re writing sounds to people with capacity for logic? You can’t find anything to attack in Palin’s 16-year-long record of experiance, so you resort to making up stuff about her children. You have no facts to back up what you say. Obama is running on a platform of “change.” His campaign can’t afford to have you out there on the attack firing lie after lie at Palin.
McCain knew exactly what he was doing and you’re playing right into his hands.

As for the hurricane, just give it up. The governor’s a Republican now, so hopefully the preparations will be done a bit more competently than when the Dems were running the show…

Posted by: Republicwin at August 30, 2008 7:19 PM
Comment #260423

I agree, phx8, unless of course, they don’t give this storm any more consideration than they did Katrina. I mean, after all, priorities, you know.
Republicwin, I apologized for making a double post….make of it what you will.
I have no doubt that all of you on the right are thinking that we Dems are responsible for this baby story. Perhaps we generated the search for evidence, and if it doesn’t come to fruition, than our bad. If it does, then I guess you do know what that will do for the almighty, lockstepping, holier-than-thou, honest to the core Republican party, right??? Hope the spinmeisters are typing their fingers to a nub now to try and “write it all right”.

Posted by: janedoe at August 30, 2008 7:30 PM
Comment #260424

Republicwin,
If there is nothing to the rumor about the Palin pregnancy, you have nothing to worry about.

But the larger point is that McCain did not know what he was doing. He rolled the dice. And rolling the dice shows bad judgment. He selected a person as VP that he had only met once in person. I say again, she has not been adequately vetted. She is a relative unknown.

Is that good enough for you, Republicwin? An unknown a heartbeat away from an old president who has had repeated bouts with cancer? An unknown with a grand total of 20 months as a governor of a small state?

I want the best for our country, and McCain is not offering the best when he rolls the dice and nominates an unknown.

Most of her “16-year-long” record of experience consists of being on the city council and then the mayor of a small town. Think about it. A few years ago, she was mayor of Wasilla.

Posted by: phx8 at August 30, 2008 7:30 PM
Comment #260425

Oldguy,
You wrote:

If Liberman was the answer, why didn’t BHO pick him? If Rice is so good, why did’nt OHB pick Her?
I never said that they were any good. I explicitly said Rice was not any good. Her policies suck. Lieberman, the same. Barrack Obama’s initials are BHO not OHB. Obama chose the rest. McCain chose Palin. Clearly from the Republican perspective there were better choices, stronger choices. Lieberman and Rice, b ad as they are from a policy perspective, would have been better choices. Both are prepared to assume the reins of power…

Tom,
Interesting thought. You think that McCain is just pulling a publicity stunt or possibly just blundered and will correct the blunder by having her find some personal reasons… I never thought of that.


Loyal Opposition,
I have debunked what you refer to as an excellent response. As to the rest of the holes that you call an argument: Obama has far more experience and at far higher level, has shown good judgment and political courage by opposing an unnecessary counterproductive war from the start, and has ran a tough and successful campaign in 50 states that has garnered him the support of at least half of the voters in this country. He has forced this corrupt Bush Regime to accept a timeline for withdrawal by garnering Iraqi government public support for his policy as opposed to Bush’s and McCain’s policies. His has been actively involved in the “fight” since graduating from college. He is well respected, and was well received by world leaders and their countrymen and you guys dare to equate the experience of a small town mayor to that? OK.

Pianofan,
You wrote: Even her touted stance against the “Bridge to Nowhere” is bogus - she was for it before she was against it.
The MCCain team equals flip flops. I agree, MCCain has shown a lot of poor judgment and a lack of knowledge of the basic facts. How can he justify not knowing the difference between Shia and Sunni in 2008. I knew that difference before we went into Iraq. Anyone who does not understand that difference in 2008 should be barred from voting let alone running for the Presidency. Their mental age is less than 18, therefore they should not be allowed to vote. He might have better judgment if he had as much knowledge as an average high school senior .


Honest,
Obtuse argument. Not sure what your point is or what it has to do with the point here. But Condi Rice has done the hard work. She has paid her dues. If McCain is so enlightened and wants to choose a woman, why not choose a woman who has done the work, who has a resume???

MCPain, I like that. There will be a lot of pian if he gets elected. I was not aware that MCCain had used those words in reference to women. I believe it but would like to see a link to some documentation.

submarinesforever,
Wrong. I would be disappointed if she were a liberal and was chosen as a running mate. Given the stakes in this election, I would buck it up and support her, but I would be disappointed that a more qualified woman like Hillary or Albrieght had not been chosen.
In one important sense, she is not living her conviction, not even close. She chose as a gift freely given to provide the services of her body to maintain the life of a birth defective fetus. I honor that choice of love. She is exercising her freedom of choice and choosing love. I honor that. She is living the convictions of the women’s right to choose movement. That is not what her convictions are. Her convictions are that the government should force women to provide the services of their bodies to keep potential people alive. She thinks that the government should have forceful control over women’s reproductive organs. In order for her to fully live her convictions she should be forced by the government to have an abortion. How would she like that? Forcing her to have an abortion would be the same level of government control over her reproductive organs that she wants the government to have over the reproductive organs of women who want abortions. That would be living her convictions. She is living choice.
As I have pointed out above: Fetuses although not yet fully human, have a right to life. They are free to live that life independent of their mother. I am fully human and have a right to life. No one is obligated to provide the services of their bodies to keep me alive not even to the point of using their body blow air into my lungs for five minutes. I have a right to live and I am free to live but I do not have the right to forcefully control your body or to have my government control your body in order to keep me alive. Forceful control of women’s reproductive organs is called rape.

tcsned,
I agree except that Condi’s disqualifications are her embrace and support of bad policies. The Repubs do not think that those policies are bad, so from that perspective she has resume. She is qualified. If they chose her we would have to argue against policies and the American people would agree with us.
I think that believing that the earth is 6000 years old should be a disqualifier in the minds of thinking people.
Good to hear about your wife feeling insulted by this. That is the best validation of my article yet.

submarinesforever,
Your argument that she has more accomplishments than Obama is a ridiculous falsehood bordering on a willful lie. If you are going to make such outrageous assertions, you should go Obama’s website, copy a list of Obama’s accomplishments, then go to her website and copy a list of her accomplishments, then compare and contrast. If you do not want to support your own weak assertion, then we will assume that assertion is weak. Give me the list. I have repeatedly listed a few of Obama’s accomplishments, and I have compared and contrasted them to her lack thereof. A few of Obama’s accomplishments is all it takes to show that he is far more qualified than her.
You wrote:

Obama believes that the baby does not have the right to life after it is born and he has acted on that belief.

Please explain this ridiculous statement.

Posted by: Ray Guest at August 30, 2008 7:34 PM
Comment #260426

I agree completely: McCain Insults Women — both Democrat AND Republican women.

At least those of us who work for a living, anyway.

Because being such a woman myself, one thing that is clear is that nothing is more obnoxious and irritating to women who have worked long and hard to get where they are in their lives, only to watch a Pretty Young Thing get handed the Big Prize by an Old Man directing things at the top of the heap. A man old enough to be the Young Thing’s Father — or her Sugar Daddy.

If he wanted a woman of solid experience and a measure of proven ability, he could have chosen someone like Kay Bailey Hutchinson, or perhaps even a more moderate Republican like Christy Todd Whitman. But no, once again McCain chose a not-too-bright Beauty Contestant to stand at his side. After all, Wife Number One was a pageant winner and professional model — until her car wreck when McCain dumped her for Cindy — the Rodeo Queen and Current Miss Buffalo Chip! Even his lobbyist “friend” Vicki Iseman was a former cheerleader. Now he picks pageant runner-up Ms. Palin-By-Comparison for the Republican VP slot.

Truly, the Blithering Stupidity of it all is still seems almost Unreal to me. Honestly, I can’t stop giggling over it!

Even so, I’ve been thinking things over about this totally preposterous pick — and I’ve come to a couple of conclusions: This pick was not directed at the kind of women who work for a living, or to any woman who has been an ardent Hillary supporter. It seems obvious to me that this pick is being directed at two sorts of GOP voters.

On the one hand, Palin appeals directly to the Evangelicals, Pentecostals, and Dominionist Types. (As lefties reading this blog will have already noticed, the religious righties here instantly loved and were extremely supportive of this Palin pick.) The Rabid Far Right Religious Zealots love her for her anti-woman, anti-abortion, anti-science, “intelligent” design advocating, denial of global warming stances. And, on the other hand, this pick also appeals to the kind of dumb-ass voter (mostly the sorts who are currently drooling over Palin’s Pretty Young Thing Status) who elected GWBush because he sounded just as unintelligent and clueless as they are themselves, and someone who they could imagine drinking a beer and watching a sporting event with.

These are also the two types in the GOP who are guaranteed to be extremely sympathetic and deeply touched by the idea that Palin chose to give birth to a child with Down Syndrome. No matter that logic informs the rest of us that a 43 year old woman who already had four healthy children at home and who held the job as a state governor (even if it is the third smallest state in the union when it comes to population) should probably have considered using birth control rather than bring a child into this world who will suffer and struggle with impaired cognitive abilities, and congenital heart defects, and thyroid dysfunction, and gastrointestinal problems, and poor muscle tone, and recurrent and frequent infections.

Such simple logic is quite alien to certain types of GOP voters — because they think their GOD absolutely hates birth control, and actually rejoices in, and lavishly rewards human ignorance.

Now, some of you may be thinking that it is unfair of me to even make mention of Palin’s infant who has Down Syndrome, or that is wrong of me to call the choice she made into question, so allow me to simply remind you of something important:
McCain and Palin want to remove the choice of abortion from other women who are pregnant with children who could suffer with the health problems related to Down Syndrome. And while they are definitely virulently Pro-Birth, their policies are definitely NOT pro-life in any other area we might name, including the issue of health care being a right that all Americans should enjoy.

As for how Obama and us Democrats address this preposterous pick? I don’t think Obama or Democratic men should go out of their way to attack her. But Hillary might make a very good campaign ad for Obama addressing Palin’s very serious shortcomings. When it comes to the VP debate, Biden doesn’t need to get aggressive with Palin, because that might stir up a lot of sympathy for her. All he needs to do is just show what he’s got: a very long history with foreign policy, and a great deal of experience and intelligence. Palin’s serious liabilities are sure to be very apparent.

Posted by: Veritas Vincit at August 30, 2008 7:39 PM
Comment #260427

phx8

You are correct about insufficient vetting. For nineteen months we have endured relentless attacks on Obama’s character, origin, faith, experience, terrorist associations etc. For nineteen months these folks have been throwing the questions of who is Obama at us. Not to mention nineteen months of them trying to convince us who they would like him to be. Yet they still do not consider nineteen months enough time to really know him. Now they expect us to accept an extreme right republican with one day in the national spotlight as vetted because they say she is. And yes it is okay that McCain only met and talked with her one time previous to his selection.

Yes, I want to know who the real Sarah Palin is. I want all the rumors and suspicions to be properly and completely vetted. I want to know what qualifies her to be in such a high position. I want to know why she should be in that position. I want to know why much more experienced and credible candidates were passed over for her. I wnat to know who she really is. Do they have time to present the absolute truth about Palin? I don’t it, fact is it takes time to form accurate opinion. But I do know that one day on the national scene for a person who appeared out of nowhere is hardly sufficient time to present an accurate accounting of who this person is.

She may be a very capable candidate. Having not had time to judge her, we nor anyone else can say with any reasonable certainty in such a short time that she is ready for the role. These folks on the right would like her to be accepted immediately because that is to their advantage. But fact is none of them, except maybe her closest friends know any better than you or I just who she is.

Posted by: RickIL at August 30, 2008 7:42 PM
Comment #260428

Just reading your responses, Ray. Check this for one answer to your questions.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/04/07/report-mccains-profane-ti_n_95429.html

Posted by: janedoe at August 30, 2008 7:46 PM
Comment #260429

phx8,

She’s really not an unknown. If you want to pretend her work doesn’t mean anything, then there’s nothing I can do about it. Everybody knew she was at least being considered.

Yeah, McCain did roll the dice. And we already know he won. On top of solidifying his base and bringing in independents, The Obama camp is going to have to do a lot of damage control to cover for baseless attacks such as yours. I’m telling you, you can’t afford to spread these lies right before a Republican convention! Don’t give your enemy ammo!

Posted by: Republicwin at August 30, 2008 7:52 PM
Comment #260430
What happened to Condi Rice? She has a resume. It is all bad, but she has a resume. She has walked in the halls of power. She has held positions of awesome responsibility. She has been forged in the fires of national crisis. She has been an abysmal failure.

Ray,

Please tell me you are joking with that statement. If you aren’t you need to make an immediate appointment with your doctor as your testosterone levels have become dangerously elevated.

Albright couldn’t carry Condoleeza’s bra.

Posted by: Kirk at August 30, 2008 8:01 PM
Comment #260432
Palin, from what I understand is a creationist, not that believing that god dropped people on this planet in our current form is a disqualifier for the office, nor believing that the earth is 6,000 years old is either. But being in the denial of a fact in the face of overwhelming evidence is not a good sign of her judgment. We need our leadership to embrace science in the 21st century not to be in denial of science. We have had that for 8 years and it has been a big setback.

Is it just me or doesn’t Obama claim to be a Christian? You see God “dropping people on this planet in our current form” is one of the main tennants of Christianity. So, since Obama claims to be a Christian by your definition he is denying facts and it is just one more sign of his poor judgement. Either that or he is simply lying to the electorate. Which is it?

Posted by: Kirk at August 30, 2008 8:15 PM
Comment #260434

Republicwin,
I do not consider Republicans my “enemy.”

I don’t have to pretend anything about Palin’s work. Her resume is paper thin. And tapping her for VP caught everyone by surprise. She’s an unknown on the national stage, with no experience in a nationwide campaign, no experience with the national economy, no experience with foreign policy, no experience with the military, and so on.

RickIL,
Will Sarah Palin be a very capable candidate? Maybe. Maybe not. That’s the whole problem. No one knows. Not even McCain.

The guy has awful judgment. If McCain wins, he has a VP who may or may not be capable of handling the presidency. That is unacceptable. That is irresponsible. The country deserves better.

I’m not crazy about Biden, but I think he’s capable of filling in if necessary. I don’t know if Palin is capable, and no one else does either. That is unacceptable.

Posted by: phx8 at August 30, 2008 8:25 PM
Comment #260435
The fact that she is a creationist puts her way out of the normal reign of acceptance with regard to national politics.

RickIL,

I think that statement is way out of the normal reigh of acceptance to the electorate.

According to and ABC News Poll 83% of Americans identify themselves as Christians. I Don’t know any Christians who belive in spontaneous generation of life from a pool of ooze.

Posted by: Kirk at August 30, 2008 8:38 PM
Comment #260436

Looks like the GOP will delay their convention because of the hurricane- check the news tomorrow- it’s probably a good decision.

Posted by: phx8 at August 30, 2008 8:42 PM
Comment #260444
I don’t want the business of running this country suddenly falling into the hands of someone, whether black, white, male, female, red, green or blue, who has such minimal applied experience.

I agree with you 100% that is why we can not let such an inexperienced candidate like Obama become president. In his short 34 months in the Senate he has not bothered to show up for more than 20% of the recorded votes. That goes along with his 130 “present” votes and his “Oops I voted wrong way on that bill and would like the record to show the I really meant to vote the other way” (his own version of “I voted for it before I voted against it) in the Illinois State Senate.

Posted by: Kirk at August 30, 2008 9:47 PM
Comment #260450

Wow, since we are now basing the fitness of a candidate on unsustantiated rumors we really need to look into this. Especially since it has moved past rumor to a US District Courtroom.

Phillip J. Berg (former chair of the PA democratic party) in Philadelphia courthouse against Barack Obama and the DNC for Obama’s ineligibility to run for President of the United States based on his not being a “natural born” citizen. The lawsuit contends that Obama has held multiple (Kenya and Indonesia citizenships) and that he was actually born in Kenya, not Hawaii as Obama has claimed. The lawsuit has also been filed against the DNC.

Even if Sen. Obama can prove his U.S. citizenship, Berg stated, citing the senator’s use of a birth certificate from the state of Hawaii verified as a forgery by three independent document forensic experts, the issue of “multi-citizenship with responsibilities owed to and allegiance to other countries” remains on the table.

Posted by: Kirk at August 30, 2008 10:10 PM
Comment #260456
Obama believes that the baby does not have the right to life after it is born and he has acted on that belief.


Please explain this ridiculous statement.

Three times, yes count them three times Obama voted against the state Born Alive Infant Protection Act that would require medical treatment for infants born alive during abortions. His stated reasoning was that the bills could be used to interfere with Roe v. Wade. However, even after the “neutrality clause” (that explicitly states the bill can not be used to interfere with R v. Wade) from a federal bill that was passed was added verbatim he still voted against it. In fact Obama was then chair of the state Health and Human Services Committee. He voted to add the federal “neutrality clause” to the bill making it nearly identical to the federal bill and then immediately voted to kill the bill in committee and it died on a 6-4 party line vote. Hell even James Nadler voted for the federal bill and NARAL didn’t oppose it, but not Obama.

Obama now claims that had he been in the US Senate two years earlier he would have voted for the federal BAIPA even though he voted against the nearly identical state bill 3 times.

Now, that is a ridiculous statement.

Posted by: Kirk at August 30, 2008 10:53 PM
Comment #260500

Kirk - there is a distinct difference between someone who believes in god and that god and science can coexist and someone who takes everything in a 2000+ year old book written by people as fact even when overwhelming evidence to the contrary. There is one word Palin and her ilk should learn - PARABLE.

It shows her lack of ability to learn from the facts and to accept facts if they run contrary to some predetermined belief system.

She only has a B.A. in communications from the University of Idaho and a minor in political science - hardly editor of the Harvard Law Review.

She is a weak candidate by any stretch of the imagination and a huge blunder for McCain. She will help deliver the christian right but that’s it. Moderates and Hillary supporters won’t buy this nonsense.

Posted by: tcsned at August 31, 2008 8:43 AM
Comment #260501

t-bone,

You wrote: “Imagine the surprise of Conservatives that Obama is the best the Dems. could do.”

Obama is an excellent candidate. The only weakness that he has is the need to overcome racism.

Tom Besly,

You wrote: “If at least some people had not listened to the rhetoric dismissing Barack he would not have gotten his chance. Hillary complained bitterly that Barack had not been vetted.”

He was much more vetted than Palin, further, running a successful national campaign has vetted him, further, Hillary and Biden were wrong to begin with. She truly has not been vetted and won’t be since she won’t be running any campaigns. Also McCain is likely to get brain cancer and die, so his choice is even more important.

KAP,

You wrote: “At least she has more executive experience than McCain, Obama and Biden combined.”

Granted, as a small town mayor / small state govenor… Frankly her experience as a Mom is more salient - that is a tough job - ask my Paneras friend - elect her - I would vote for her. Palin has no experience on a national stage, no experience on a world stage…


phx8,

You wrote: “The nomination of Sarah Palin is a stupid move of dumbfounding proportions. Check with me in two weeks, and I will be happy to say “I told you so.””

People draw to themselves what they fear most. McCain’s choice of her seems desperate. He knows he needs the center to win. He knows he needs to placate the Christian extremist. He is to play the center for fools and placate the extremist. If he really wanted to reach the center, he would have chosen someone from the center like magic underpants. This will backfire on him but I hope it takes longer than 2 weeks. We don’t want her to find personal reasons to leave until she has crippled his campaign beyond repair.

Jim M.

You wrote: “Does the mere running for public office and winning, in and of itself, make the candidate ready to assume that office?”

You make a good argument here. First, however, Obama has more experience than that, as I have cited above. The best supporting case for your argument is of course Bush. He won - then disastrous failure. Running a winning national campaign is a high pressure, high stakes, executive position. The campaign does reveal what kind of an executive the President will be. In Bush’s case, his campaign was predatory, dishonest, back stabbing, pandered to religious extremist, and pandered to the rich and powerful elite - his Presidency in a nut shell… Obama has ran a very different kind of campaign. He would be a very different kind of President. His campaign has been clean, respectful, inclusive, inspirational, middle of the road moderate, tough, flexible, and able to learn from its mistakes. That is the kind of President he would be.

sicilian eagle,

Who is Barry?

You wrote: “Plus, she is easy on the eyes..at least easy on the Eagle’s eyes for sure.”

The eagle has good eyes. This is the only thing that you wrote that is correct.

sicilianeagle,

You wrote: “I said “they”,and no one looks better than McCain as a backer of the surge, which the Dems do not acknowledge did any good. It is laughable.”

And it didn’t. See my article titled: The Surge is Working

Posted by: Ray Guest at August 31, 2008 8:49 AM
Comment #260502

Ray:

“Obama believes that the baby does not have the right to life after it is born and he has acted on that belief. Please explain this ridiculous statement.”

Senator Obama chose to actively opposed a state bill that would require doctors to give medical treatment to a born baby that has survived an abortion. It is his experience and judgement that is his qualification for President. He possibly shoulsd voted present, again.

Posted by: submarinesforever at August 31, 2008 9:10 AM
Comment #260510
Kirk - there is a distinct difference between someone who believes in god and that god and science can coexist and someone who takes everything in a 2000+ year old book written by people as fact even when overwhelming evidence to the contrary. There is one word Palin and her ilk should learn - PARABLE.

Oh, Really?

Nelson Glueck, a respected Jewish archaeologist claims: “It may be stated categorically that no archaeological discovery has ever contradicted a biblical reference.”

Also Jesus was mentioned by many contemporary, non-Christian historians. Flavius Josephus, Rabbi Eliezer and writers of the Talmud, Roman historian Cornelius Tacitus, Thallus, a Samaritan historian, and a multitude of others.

The latest version of Encyclopedia Britannica says in its discussion of the multiple extra-biblical witnesses:

“These independent accounts prove that in ancient times even the opponents of Christianity never doubted the historicity of Jesus, which was disputed for the first time and on inadequate grounds by several authors at the end of the 18th, during the 19th, and at the beginning of the 20th centuries.”

historian and archeologist Sir William Ramsay:

“I began with a mind unfavorable to it…but more recently I found myself brought into contact with the Book of Acts as an authority for the topography, antiquities, and society of Asia Minor. It was gradually borne upon me that in various details the narrative showed marvelous truth3.

Luke is a historian of the first rank; not merely are his statements of fact trustworthy…this author should be placed along with the very greatest historians4.”

historian A.N. Sherwin-White:

“Any attempt to reject its basic historicity even in matters of detail must now appear absurd. Roman historians have long taken it for granted5”

University of Yale archeologist Millar Burrows:

“…Archeological work has unquestionably strengthened confidence in the reliability of the scriptural record. More than one archeologist has found respect for the Bible increased by the experience of excavation in Palestine6.”

Posted by: Kirk at August 31, 2008 11:24 AM
Comment #260512

phx8,

You wrote: “It’s possible this is just a rumor. So we’ll find out the truth soon.” I am going to run the story of this delivery past my wife who worked in high risk labor and delivery. My wife says it doesn’t sound like a normal delivery to her. The disturbing part about this for me if it were true is the emotional neglect of her daughter. She hides her daughter’s pregnancy, not to protect her daughter, girls get pregnant, that is what they do, she hides her daughter’s pregnancy for her own political gain and expediency. In other words, the daughter’s emotional needs during such a difficult period of her life are subordinated to her mother’s political needs. If this does turn out to be true it certainly is reprehensible. It would make her a good heir to the George Bush legacy of Machiavellian political expediency.

Assume the best. Assume her daughter really did have Mono. Assume number 5 is hers. This leaves me questions of why this staunch pro-life woman is neglecting the baby (at 8 months, viable outside the womb, it is a baby). Leaking amniotic fluid??? She should be rushing to the nearest hospital to make sure the baby is alright. Did she want God to perform an abortion for her? Was she trying to give him a little help? “The Lord helps them that helps themselves…” Leaking amniotic fluid might not be serious but a loving mother would certainly want to immediately consult with a doctor and attempt to prolong the pregnancy for the baby’s benefit. She would not be fly on a plane and drive for forty five minutes. She would be on a phone and rust to the nearest hospital. Maybe there is an explanation? Was this speech in Angoon to 10 native Americans where the only medical care was a shaman? If so why was finishing the speech so very important. Was the plane a bush plane with pontoon floats? Was a plane ride and a 45 minute drive to Wasila the closest medical facility? If there are not good answers to these questions then this smells like Kawock… My wife thinks that it is less likely for a teenager to deliver a baby with downs syndrome because genetic damage accumulates as we age. But that leaves the serious questions about the neglect of the baby. (Sarah probably does not believe in genes because they prove that the earth is older than 6000 years…)

Republicwin,

What we say here has nothing to do with Obama. We are not surrogates. We are not authorized to speak for him. We are asking good questions. You have no answers.

You wrote:

You double post an apology for double posting and then try to call a woman with more years of political accomplishment than Obama can even dream of a ditz? Nice try.
You guys keep telking about her great experience but never list what it is - sounds like a big lie to me… What experience does she have??? Bring it. Tell us about her great experience. We have been explicit about Obama’s experience. You bring nothing.

Loyal Opposition,

You wrote:

If you’re concerned about being “vetted,” there are entire YEARS of Obama’s biography that are unaccounted for. A suspicious mind like yours might wonder if he wasn’t training at an Al Qaida camp in Afghanistan… that is, if he were a Republican instead of a socialist Democrat.
You Repubs have suggested exactly that. The difference here is there is absolutely no reason to suspect that of Obama. Palin’s delivery does seem genuinely odd. As mentioned above, my wife is an RN with labor and delivery, high risk labor and delivery, and antipartum experience. A women who cared about her child would not delay medical care under the kinds of circumstances thus far revealed. This looks suspicious. She has a choice. Answer the questions. Or. Leave us to speculate and assume the worst. Personally I just think that she was trying to help God perform an abortion. Question: Does leaking amniotic fluid smell like rotting fish heads because this smells like rotting fish heads? Just asking.

RickIL,

You wrote:

Good luck with your hunting excursion. Maybe you and dead eye Dick Cheney can get together and do a little liberal hunting. ;-)

Don’t ever suggest that. We know the Dick is a pretty good shot when he is shooting at old men’s faces and I am an old liberal…

OK you guys finally gave us some specifics on Palin’s experience. Sixteen years as a small town mayor and councilman. You actually have the nerve to count that. You have a lot of nerve calling that experience. Keep with the big lie though. It has worked for you in the past.

Her real experience consists of 2 years as governor of a small state. And in that short time there are ethics questions and investigations. She is a strong candidate. We could have had Condi. We could be arguing about real policy issues. Of course you guys know that you would lose that fight. That is why you did not want to have it. This fight is much better for you. This was good choice for McCain. He would not want to have to talk about the real issues.


Posted by: Ray Guest at August 31, 2008 11:30 AM
Comment #260513

submarinesforever,

Youi wrote: Senator Obama chose to actively opposed a state bill that would require doctors to give medical treatment to a born baby that has survived an abortion. It is his experience and judgement that is his qualification for President. He possibly shoulsd voted present, again.

Doctors don’t have to give treatment to me if my tells them not to. In the case of an abortion the mother has the equivalent power of attorney for the child. This bill was just antiabortion bull. I have already addressed abortion above. No one has challenged me.

Posted by: Ray Guest at August 31, 2008 11:34 AM
Comment #260541

Kirk,

You wrote:

Nelson Glueck, a respected Jewish archaeologist claims: “It may be stated categorically that no archaeological discovery has ever contradicted a biblical reference.”

If Nelson Glueck is saying that the earth is only 6000 years old then he is an idiot and anyone who believes his statement is an idiot. Most likely his statement is made from the standpoint of a liberal interpretation of the Bible. Anyone who believes the earth is only 6000 years old is an idiot. Sarah Palin is an idiot. Do we want an idiot for President. We have had one for nearly 8 years. How has that worked for you?

I don’t see any of these people that quote saying that the earth is only 6000 years old nor do I consider any of them to be unimpeachable sources in in the more limited interpretations of what they do mean. Lots of people have said lots of things about the Bible including Christian Biblical who claim that the parting of the Red sea was actually the parting of the reed sea - a swamp where the wind blows the water out all the time. The book of Genesis has at least 3 separate and contradictory creation myths.

The non-Biblical records of Jesus are very sketchy at best, especially since Jesus was a common name. There are records from India however that suggest that Jesus may have traveled there during the missing years and studied Buddhism - that his Christian philosophy was really an attempt to introduce mystical Buddhism to a Jewish audience. I believe Jesus was a real dude - an enlightened dude - just a dude - after he was nailed to a cross just a dead dude.


Posted by: Ray Guest at August 31, 2008 3:03 PM
Comment #260552

Ray

That was an excellent response to Kirk and I thoroughly enjoyed the education. But man that was a lot of writing which was probably wasted on someone who does not believe in science to begin with.

I don’t know about you but I find the notion of not believing in science to be just about the most ridiculously absurd belief in this modern age. I have thought about this a bit and logic does not allow that notion to exist in my mind in any way shape or form. A person has to be in almost total denial of the realities around them to deny that science is a reputable institution.

Posted by: RickIL at August 31, 2008 3:28 PM
Comment #260556

Ray

An after thought here. I am wondering just what does that say about these people? The idea of declaring faith and denying realities in the interest of not compromising ones faith, imo, does not speak of a stable mind. Am I wrong in this analogy. Am I missing something here?

Posted by: RickIL at August 31, 2008 3:39 PM
Comment #260567

Frankly, the amount of hate, bullshit, innuendo, lies, un and half-truths in many of the postings above is proof positive that not even The Obama can bring us together.

The images of the newly picked VP candidate, Sarah Palin, have hardly vanished from the screen before we begin to read stuff written by folks who have no first hand knowledge of Ms. Palin and who take talking points from someone they don’t know and begin pontificating. How disgusting and revealing at the same time.

For me, I’ll wait for the ink to dry on a few newspapers and magazines, endure a few talking heads, do a little research myself and then, perhaps, share my view.

One thing that I do know about the presidency from over 50 teen and adult years of being a witness to the various holders of that position and reading their description of the job is that none of them admit to being ready.

Neither of the presidential or vice presidential candidates is ready for this office. None has ever experienced the weight of this office until the oath is taken. None can imagine the enormous responsibility of having over 300 million American lives, and much of the world, depending upon their decisions. None of them knows how they will be tested in their term of office. And, none of them knows how they will respond to a stress and responsibility they couldn’t possibly understand until the mantle of leadership is placed on their shoulders.

We should be praying for each of the candidates rather than trying to damn them to hell.

Posted by: Jim M at August 31, 2008 4:31 PM
Comment #260576
Doctors don’t have to give treatment to me if my tells them not to. In the case of an abortion the mother has the equivalent power of attorney for the child. This bill was just antiabortion bull. I have already addressed abortion above. No one has challenged me

I will challenge you. If the mother of a new born baby tells the doctor to put the living baby aside and let it die that would be considered murder or at the very least man slaughter. Yet it the woman has decided to have an abortion and the baby is born alive and she tells the doctor to set it aside and let it die it is a “choice”?

So, where is the differentiation? Both babies are born alive and is a living infant. To intentionally let the baby die by denying it medical care is morally and ethically reprehensible and should be illegal.

Posted by: Kirk at August 31, 2008 5:19 PM
Comment #260581
If Nelson Glueck is saying that the earth is only 6000 years old then he is an idiot and anyone who believes his statement is an idiot. Most likely his statement is made from the standpoint of a liberal interpretation of the Bible. Anyone who believes the earth is only 6000 years old is an idiot.

Ray,

I see you still have not had that testosterone level checked yet. Where in the world do you get out of Glueck’s quote that he is saying the world is only 6,000 years old? I have read it over several times and for the life of me I just don’t see it anywhere.

Since you have made this 6,000 year earth statement a few times now I will assume that you are trying to suggest that the Bible claims the earth is only 6,000 years old. If that is what you are doing, please cite the scripture that makes that statement. I will be waiting with anticipation to see what liberal spin you can come up with for this one.

Posted by: Kirk at August 31, 2008 5:30 PM
Comment #260586

Kirk, et al - the Young Earth Theory of Creation (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Young_Earth_creationism) states their belief that the earth is between 6-10,000 years old and that god created the earth in 6 solar days. This literal interpretation of the bible is what we are talking about. I have no clue about your belief system nor anyone else on this post. But this seems to be consistent with what I have heard from most creationists. I have also heard the argument that carbon dating is inaccurate and that that the earth can’t possibly be 4.54 billion years old as science suggests. They also say that evolution is a myth and that we did not descend from lower species and science suggests. For those who believe that the universe isn’t billions of years old - tell me, how can we see stars more than a billion light years away?

Sarah Palin has every right in the world to believe whatever she wants no matter how much evidence refutes that belief. She has every right to run for VP, president, or whatever she wants. I do not believe in a religious litmus test for public service. I cannot personally support anyone who doesn’t believe in the fundamental principles of science as she seems to. If I am wrong I will apologize - though her and John McCain’s stands on the issues will prevent me from voting for them no matter what her religious views are.

I’m sorry everyone is so upset at the rumors that have flown around about Palin - I don’t think that they are true and won’t repeat them. But where was your indignation when Hillary was accused by the right of being a lesbian (as if it was a bad thing), or that Bill Clinton was a murderer, or that John Kerry faked his wounds in Viet Nam? Huh? Where were you all when this ridiculous book about Obama written by that liar Corsi? Where were you when Obama was accused of being a muslim (as if that were a bad thing), going to a madrassa, giving terrorist fist bumps to his wife?

The left is not even in the same league of coming up with lies about the GOP candidates as the GOP has been to the Dems. Not even close. So do I support making things up about Sarah Palin? No. Do I feel sorry for her? Not really - welcome to the big leagues Sarah - it will likely get worse for both sides before this is all over. What I think is sad is that there will be all of this wallowing in the mud by the candidates in an election where there are actually real issues to debate.

I still say she is on par with Dan Quayle as far as ability to do the job - thank god GHW Bush survived his term. It is going to put McCain’s health in play as an issue though I think this too is beside the point of either of the GOP candidate’s fitness for the job.

Sarah Palin doesn’t deserve to be swiftboated - though neither did John Kerry and neither does Barack Obama. I thought Michael Palin would have been a better Palin to choose for VP - he’s at least funny and McCain left his sense of humor behind - he could use some comic relief.

Posted by: tcsned at August 31, 2008 6:06 PM
Comment #260589
That was an excellent response to Kirk and I thoroughly enjoyed the education. But man that was a lot of writing which was probably wasted on someone who does not believe in science to begin with.

I don’t know about you but I find the notion of not believing in science to be just about the most ridiculously absurd belief in this modern age. I have thought about this a bit and logic does not allow that notion to exist in my mind in any way shape or form. A person has to be in almost total denial of the realities around them to deny that science is a reputable institution.

RickIL,

Actually that was a very weak response, so far Ray has offered no supporting evidence, quotes or anything else for that matter to refute what I have posted.

As for me not believing in science I see you are following Ray’s reasoning with the 6,000 year bs. You see, I was a Biology Major. You see, I have studied Genetics, Microbiology, Human Physiology and Anatomy, Botony, Zoology and Statistical Analysis.

All this study is a major part of what lead me to the knowledge that there is indeed a creator. The complexity of living organisms and their processes should lead any clear thinking person to this conclussion, especially if they have even a rudimentary understanding of statistics.

Science is not absolute truth. It changes as new data and viewpoints force it to change. Scientific Laws do not define nature, nature defines Scientific Laws. Science is a description of what and how we think things are. We cannot get absolute answers to our questions, we can only observe, test, and probe the unknown until we begin to think we know what the answers are to our questions.

You should remember from school that Science once told us that the world was flat, that the sun orbited the earth. Science also once said that the human body could not withstand the rigors of travel beyond the speed of sound or that the electron was the smallest particle. You see science constantly changes what most people consider to be facts.


Posted by: Kirk at August 31, 2008 6:29 PM
Comment #260604

Kirk, yes science did once tell us that the world was flat, the whole universe revolved around the earth, etc. But to compare scientific knowledge of the 15th century to the peer reviewed publications of today is not a valid comparison. I too studied biology in college though graduated with a different degree. I learned enough to not be deceived by bogus research, ridiculous claims, or outright inventions. There is no evidence that the world is between 6-10,000 years old and a lot of evidence for 4.54 billion years. There is no evidence of humans coming to earth in their current state and a lot of evidence for evolving from lower species. None of this specifically rules out a creator. But there is absolutely nothing that can prove his/her existence. It’s also one thing to accept that we don’t know it all yet and when we get new evidence that we incorporate it into our greater understanding and ignoring evidence because it doesn’t agree with an interpretation of an old book.

Posted by: tcsned at August 31, 2008 7:38 PM
Comment #260638

kirk

I am not stupid. I do understand science. Theory is science based on belief that can not as yet be proven as fact. Fact is the ultimate destination of most science. It is the process of doing and doing over again and again until we can provide fact as indisputable. We may not always understand why something is but we can sure as hell say without a doubt that it is.

If I remember correctly the subject of creationism was at the head of the discussion. The fact that Palin describes herself as a creationist was what fueled the discussion. Most of us see the idea of the rebuttal of science and an unwillingness to think it needs to be taught in schools as preposterous. I understand it goes against the grain of their faith. But it must be remembered that faith is nothing more than that. It is a process of maintaining a belief in something that can not be verified. To deny students a right to believe in science, much of which can be verified, makes no logical sense. That is unless one finds it more important to maintain faith than fact. I will say that I think we all need faith to get us through things we simply can not be sure about. But to go to the extent that faith simply ignores fact is nothing more than denial of reality. In that I find a moral and practical dilemma of which I am not sure how to react.

Posted by: RickIL at August 31, 2008 10:17 PM
Comment #260644

tcsned

The left is not even in the same league of coming up with lies about the GOP candidates as the GOP has been to the Dems. Not even close. So do I support making things up about Sarah Palin? No. Do I feel sorry for her? Not really - welcome to the big leagues Sarah - it will likely get worse for both sides before this is all over. What I think is sad is that there will be all of this wallowing in the mud by the candidates in an election where there are actually real issues to debate

I have read some of the soap opera implications on Palin as well. I have not participated because at this point it is mostly just speculation. And that is the difference between how the GOP has attacked Obama and we have questioned Palins worth. There is a huge difference between speculation and creation of false accusation. I have seen no one here claim without a doubt that any of these rumors are fact. All I have seen is people attempting to determine if they are fact and trying to determine if they fit with the facts they do know. In essence they are going through a personal vetting process. To ignore these things would be irresponsible if indeed any of them are true. Only time and the ability to prove otherwise will satisfy that need for information on Palin. As you say “Welcome to the big leagues”

The problem for the repubs is that they picked up a candidate out of nowhere that has not had time to go through this process that invariably happens to all candidates, over a long period of time. They of course are unrealistically expecting instant unanimous approval for their VP candidate simply because McCain says she is ok. A person who only met with her one time previous to her selection.

I personally feel that a large part of the Palin decision was to detract from the issues on which republicans are very weak this year. That and pandering to the extreme right, evangelicals, and some extreme feminists. It is imo a multifaceted tactic that is born more of convenience than responsibility.

Posted by: RickIL at August 31, 2008 10:48 PM
Comment #260657

RickIL,


You wrote:

The idea of declaring faith and denying realities in the interest of not compromising ones faith, imo, does not speak of a stable mind.

I was writing to a friend about an my lack of certainty yesterday and wrote:

I think we all see life through a series of filters. Some of us have one filter that we rigidly use. Some of us are more enlightened and have a number of filters. The filters become us. They are our world view, our personality, our perspective. They are always a distortion of reality but they give us one or more organizing principals with which to accept or reject aspects of ourselves. People like George Bush who use one rigid filter have tremendous self assurance. They are as_h_les but they don’t question themselves. They are not riddled with, crippled by self doubt and internal conflict. Those aspects of self which do not align with the filter are repressed, denied, closeted, or acted out in subliminal ways.
I think that this relates to what you are talking about here. So in one sense the are very stable - stable like a rock - solid - not smart.

Jim M.

You wrote:

Neither of the presidential or vice presidential candidates is ready for this office. None has ever experienced the weight of this office until the oath is taken. None can imagine the enormous responsibility of having over 300 million American lives, and much of the world, depending upon their decisions. None of them knows how they will be tested in their term of office. And, none of them knows how they will respond to a stress and responsibility they couldn’t possibly understand until the mantle of leadership is placed on their shoulders.

We should be praying for each of the candidates rather than trying to damn them to hell.First, I don’t believe in hell so I am not damning anyone there.

Other than that I agree. The mantle is heavy which is why we want more than a small town mayor…


Kirk,
You wrote:

I will challenge you. If the mother of a new born baby tells the doctor to put the living baby aside and let it die that would be considered murder or at the very least man slaughter. Yet it the woman has decided to have an abortion and the baby is born alive and she tells the doctor to set it aside and let it die it is a “choice”?

So, where is the differentiation? Both babies are born alive and is a living infant. To intentionally let the baby die by denying it medical care is morally and ethically reprehensible and should be illegal.

You have not challenged my above logic regarding abortion. This is a separate issue, but you are wrong here too. My wife has a durable power of attorney and has the right to determine what medical care I receive when I am unable to choose for myself. She can decide to withhold food, water, and all life sustaining medical treatments. she has the explicit right in writing to do so for any reason at any time, to move me to a different state if necessary, to move me to a different country if necessary… I wrote the power of attorney such that her rights are absolute and unequivocal. Terri Schivo and the friggin Repubs made a believer out of me. An aborted fetus / baby that is still alive is also incapacitated and unable to decide for itself and the mother has the same legal rights. In order to take those rights away from the mother you would have to take them away from my wife which would mean that the friggin Repubs would have the right to do the same vicious thing to me that they did to Terri Schivo. The friggun Repubs like Palin want to effectively rape woman, now they want the right to effectively rape me too. I am not going down without a fight.

You also wrote:

I see you still have not had that testosterone level checked yet.
I have and I am taking 1 cc injectable every 2 weeks - I think I need it every 10 days, but right now my level is fine…
You also wrote:
Since you have made this 6,000 year earth statement a few times now I will assume that you are trying to suggest that the Bible claims the earth is only 6,000 years old.
Quite the contrary. The Bible represents a 10,000 year old tradition of people trying to understand the unknowable. You were defending Palin and she apparently believes that the earth is only 6000 years old. She also believes that the religious belief in creationism should be taught as science.


Posted by: Ray Guest at August 31, 2008 11:44 PM
Comment #260666
And that is the difference between how the GOP has attacked Obama and we have questioned Palins worth. There is a huge difference between speculation and creation of false accusation. I have seen no one here claim without a doubt that any of these rumors are fact.

You aren’t looking very close then, RickIL.

VV and janedoe have already determined, ‘beyond a doubt’ that they believe the rumors to be true.

And it is hilarious that someone recently posted a link about ‘Swiftboating 2.0’. I guess they read a little too much…

Posted by: Rhinehold at September 1, 2008 12:24 AM
Comment #260687
If I remember correctly the subject of creationism was at the head of the discussion. The fact that Palin describes herself as a creationist was what fueled the discussion. Most of us see the idea of the rebuttal of science and an unwillingness to think it needs to be taught in schools as preposterous. I understand it goes against the grain of their faith. But it must be remembered that faith is nothing more than that. It is a process of maintaining a belief in something that can not be verified. To deny students a right to believe in science, much of which can be verified, makes no logical sense.

Rick,

Please post a link to your evidence for Palin not wanting science taught in schools or wanting to deny students a right to believe in science. Try as I might, I have been unable to find any such evidence.

What Palin did say on the subject of science and creation is “Teach both. You know, don’t be afraid of information. Healthy debate is so important, and it’s so valuable in our schools. I am a proponent of teaching both.”

She followed that up with the following during an interview a few days later. “It’s OK to let kids know that there are theories out there,” she said in the interview. “They gain information just by being in a discussion.”

No where do I see anything about removing science instruction from schools.

Posted by: Kirk at September 1, 2008 2:17 AM
Comment #260689
My wife has a durable power of attorney and has the right to determine what medical care I receive when I am unable to choose for myself. She can decide to withhold food, water, and all life sustaining medical treatments. she has the explicit right in writing to do so for any reason at any time, to move me to a different state if necessary, to move me to a different country if necessary… I wrote the power of attorney such that her rights are absolute and unequivocal.

Ray,

Here is where you arguement falls apart. You gave your wife the power to make those decisions. The new born infant has in no way given his mother the power to make those decisions. Again under your criteria, a mother could simply decide after giving birth to allow the baby to die and instruct the doctor to do so.

Once the infant is born alive to discard it like yesterdays trash is nothing short of repugnant.

Posted by: Kirk at September 1, 2008 2:34 AM
Comment #260690
Quite the contrary. The Bible represents a 10,000 year old tradition of people trying to understand the unknowable. You were defending Palin and she apparently believes that the earth is only 6000 years old. She also believes that the religious belief in creationism should be taught as science.

Ray,

Please post a link to evidence for your contention that Palin believes the earth is only 6,000 years old. Or are you simply jumping to this conclussion because she belives in Creation?

Posted by: Kirk at September 1, 2008 3:08 AM
Comment #260712

Ray, great replies here.

Rhinehold:

VV and janedoe have already determined, ‘beyond a doubt’ that they believe the rumors to be true.

That’s a lie.

Posted by: Veritas Vincit at September 1, 2008 12:07 PM
Comment #260721

Ray Guest says, “The friggun Repubs like Palin want to effectively rape woman, now they want the right to effectively rape me too. I am not going down without a fight.

Ray, the durable power of attorney you granted your spouse was a conscious decision made by you after careful consideration and trust of your wife. Did the infant get to make that same decision?

The criminal put to death by a state had three things the infant didn’t have. A crime committed which society decided deserved the death penalty. A trial during which evidence in defense was presented. And three, one or more appeals to a higher authority. The infant enjoyed none of these.

Posted by: Jim M at September 1, 2008 1:03 PM
Comment #260736

Kirk

Please post a link to your evidence for Palin not wanting science taught in schools or wanting to deny students a right to believe in science. Try as I might, I have been unable to find any such evidence.

NPR was interviewing someone from a political office in Alaska that apparently knows the woman very well. Part of the conversation centered around her belief in creationism. The lady stated that Sara Palin is opposed to science being taught in schools. I can not provide a link since it was a radio program. I have been processing so much information the last few days that there is just no way in hell I am going to go back and try to remember exactly what program and day or time it came from.

What Palin did say on the subject of science and creation is “Teach both. You know, don’t be afraid of information. Healthy debate is so important, and it’s so valuable in our schools. I am a proponent of teaching both.”

Fine let them teach science and discuss creationism. But teach science in science class. The rest would be suitable for the debate team or a philosophy class. In the end you are still discussing theory and its association with theological faith. Imo a subject much more appropriate for Sunday school.

Posted by: RickIL at September 1, 2008 2:27 PM
Comment #260738

Rhinehold

You aren’t looking very close then, RickIL.

I just got done glancing over the posts over there and I still did not see anyone declare without a doubt that the situation is fact. I believe they were working mush closer to that belief, but not quite there yet. Perhaps you could provide that a link to that determination. I really don’t feel like going back and reading all of them again.

Posted by: RickIL at September 1, 2008 2:32 PM
Comment #260742

Ray

I think that this relates to what you are talking about here. So in one sense the are very stable - stable like a rock - solid - not smart

Yes Ray, they are stable in a very one sided way. They are not particularly practical people.

Posted by: RickIL at September 1, 2008 2:38 PM
Comment #260755
That’s a lie.

So, you weren’t making a factual statement when you posted:

Sarah Palin is the mother of four children, and the Granny of one. And despite all her religious posturing, she appears fully capable of lying her ass off whenever it suits her purposes.

You didn’t say ‘could be’ or ‘may be’ or ‘appears to be’. You made a hard factual statement.

I guess that just tells me that everything you post is subject to question then, if such a statement cannot be taken as what it means.

Posted by: Rhinehold at September 1, 2008 3:53 PM
Comment #260756

Oh, and this one:

Poor Granny Palin. She should have told the truth about her little grandson, but I guess that’s asking too much from a Fundamentalist Christian Republican.

I wonder who they’ll give the slot to if she goes. Maybe the Mittster?

Posted by: Rhinehold at September 1, 2008 3:54 PM
Comment #260780

Rhinehold,
I think if anyone reads the whole thread, they’ll understand that I never really knew what the whole truth was about Palin’s pregnancy, but that I definitely thought there might be something to it. And it turns out that there was.
As a result of liberals bloggers speculations like my own, Granny Palin, who firmly believes in abstinence only educations for teens, finally had to admit that her 17 year old daughter was in fact five months pregnant. We now also know that Palin was incredibly stupid enough to fly while eight months pregnant, even after her water broke, and go out of her way to give birth to her child with Downs Syndrome in a hospital that lacked a Neonatal Infant Care Unit.

Posted by: Veritas Vincit at September 1, 2008 5:37 PM
Comment #260802
I think if anyone reads the whole thread

The whole thread wasn’t there when I wrote what I wrote that you called me a liar on.

The last two posts by you were the ones I quoted, and it is clear that, at least at that time before you were proven wrong, you had made up your mind and were making factual statements, not wondering.

I’ll be sure to ignore any further ‘statements of fact’, like the one where talk about her decision to do with her own body what she felt was right, as just passing thoughts that have no meaning at all.

Posted by: Rhinehold at September 1, 2008 7:37 PM
Comment #260812
NPR was interviewing someone from a political office in Alaska that apparently knows the woman very well. Part of the conversation centered around her belief in creationism. The lady stated that Sara Palin is opposed to science being taught in schools.

Rick,

So NPR (not the most center network out there) interviews an un-named government or political employee who apparently knows Palin and get at best second hand information which can not be corroborated and we are supposed to buy into this? Despite Palin’s own quotes which I provided from two different dates and venues?

I seriously doubt the people of Alaska (regardless of the fact that they are so small town / small state) would have elected as govenor a person who would want science education removed from the public school system.

Posted by: Kirk at September 1, 2008 8:05 PM
Comment #260815

Yeah,

I heard Mark Levin interviewing some guy at the Law School that Obama taught at and he stated that Barack Obama is opposed to anyone owning any guns.

So, by comparision, is that rumor true or false, RickIL?

Posted by: Rhinehold at September 1, 2008 8:20 PM
Comment #260841

Kirk,

You wrote:

Please post a link to your evidence for Palin not wanting science taught in schools or wanting to deny students a right to believe in science. Try as I might, I have been unable to find any such evidence.

See:Sarah Palin Wants Creationism Taught in School

See also:Creation science’ enters the race

Creationism is a religious belief. To advocate teaching religion in as if it were science is not advocate not teaching science.

You also wrote:

Here is where you arguement falls apart. You gave your wife the power to make those decisions. The new born infant has in no way given his mother the power to make those decisions. Again under your criteria, a mother could simply decide after giving birth to allow the baby to die and instruct the doctor to do so.
A durable power of attorney grants a right to someone to make decisions for and act on behalf of another person. In the case of a medical durable power of attorney the person holding the power of attorney can make life and death decisions for the person who grants that right to them including withholding food, water, and life sustaining medical treatments. A parent has that inherent right in regards to their children and has had that right since the beginning of fundamentalist Christian time 6000 years ago. It is true that the child does not grant the right, the child does not have the right to grant the right until it reaches the age of consent. The parents rights over the child are stronger, more fundamental, and more sacred, than the rights that I grant to my wife. I can cancel a durable power of attorney anytime. A child cannot cancel a parents rights, only a court can. So, I was not saying that a child grants a durable medical power of attorney. I was only saying that parents have the same rights and they do, as they should - and to violate that sacred bond with a law is to impose government intrusion into families and is anti-family. This slimy law was made as dishonest back door attempt to stop abortion. These fetuses are not viable. Even if some late second term fetuses could survive if given millions of dollars of painful invasive medical therapy they would be profoundly mentally and physically disabled. The slimy back stabbing intent of this law is to stick the government’s nose into sacred family decisions and make it impossible for doctors to perform abortions. It is slimy attempt to make an end run around the Constitution and deny woman their Constitutional right to control their own bodies.


Posted by: Ray Guest at September 1, 2008 10:11 PM
Comment #260847

Kirk,

Your assertion that a mother could instruct a doctor to kill a healthy infant is false and misleading - deliberately so, either by you or the people that you are borrowing this argument from. A healthy baby does not need medical care. It is viable and only needs ordinary care. A parent’s rights to deny ordinary care to a healthy child have already been abridged - that was also pretty much since the beginning of fundamentalist Christian time 6000 years ago.

Posted by: Ray Guest at September 1, 2008 10:32 PM
Comment #260849

Kirk

Please see Rays links he provided. They tell the story. Apparently you did not look too hard. I did not state the position perfectly. Sorry. The fact remains she believes in creationism and would like it taught in school. I see no place for teaching faith in school, especially in relation with science. That very comparison is a redundancy.

Posted by: RickIL at September 1, 2008 10:34 PM
Comment #260850

Ray

Thank you for providing the informative links. I was too lazy to do the work at the time.

Posted by: RickIL at September 1, 2008 10:35 PM
Comment #260852

kirk

One other thing. NPR is just about as centered as any media source you will find anywhere.

Posted by: RickIL at September 1, 2008 10:37 PM
Comment #260857
NPR is just about as centered as any media source you will find anywhere

Meaning not at all.

Posted by: Rhinehold at September 1, 2008 10:48 PM
Comment #260879

Rhinehold

NPR is just about as centered as any media source you will find anywhere

Meaning not at all.

Forever the cynic. I am curious Rhinehold, have you ever had anything positive to add in these blogs. I can’t recall any right off hand, other than perhaps a few moments of humble apology. It seems as though your entire aim is to tear each and every notion down no matter its worth or context. This is not an attempt to inflame or draw you into argument. I am must trying to understand why you seem to be so cynical all the time with relation to virtually everything.

Posted by: RickIL at September 1, 2008 11:37 PM
Comment #260884

I despise when people partake in hypocrisy or foolishness that has little to do with the real issue, when they are acting the high road while slinging mud and as both parties ignore the real issue with the US, that the national debt has been increasing every year in the US for decades, under the ‘watchful’ eye of both the democrats and republicans while both parties trample on our individual liberties in their own little ways.

So when someone says something that is wrong, illogical, mean-spirited, ignorant, partisan, etc, I try to point it out.

Posted by: Rhinehold at September 1, 2008 11:49 PM
Comment #260891

Ray,

Again, Palin no where says anything about not teaching science in schools. Gumby couldn’t even make the stretch that you are attempting to make.

A parent has that inherent right in regards to their children and has had that right since the beginning of fundamentalist Christian time 6000 years ago. It is true that the child does not grant the right, the child does not have the right to grant the right until it reaches the age of consent. The parents rights over the child are stronger, more fundamental, and more sacred, than the rights that I grant to my wife.

I am sure that there are a few parents from the quoted stories below who can’t wait for you to show up and set the authorities straight on this matter.

Parents who wished to deny lifesaving treatment to their newborn child to avoid raising a child with disabilities are not entitled to monetary damages from the hospital that treated her over their objection, a Texas appellate court ruled on December 28, 2000. An appeal to the Texas Supreme Court is expected.

The court’s majority opinion recognized that parents have a right to care and custody of their children. But the judges also emphasized parents’ legal duty to provide their children needed medical care and the “legal and policy interest … of the state … to guard the well-being of minors, even where doing so requires limiting the freedom and authority of parents over their children.”


In 1944 the US Supreme Court decreed that “the right to practice religion freely does not include the liberty to expose the community or child to communicable disease, or the latter to ill health or death… Parents may be free to become martyrs themselves. But it does not follow they are free, in identical circumstances, to make martyrs of their children before they have reached the age of full and legal discretion” (Asser 625). This ruling clearly denies parents the right to forego medical care for ill or injured children.

Parents who prayed as their 11-year-old daughter died of untreated diabetes will be charged with second-degree reckless homicide, the Marathon County district attorney said Monday. “The failure to seek medical intervention created an unreasonable and substantial risk of death or great bodily harm,” District Attorney Jill Falstad said.

From the State of Alabama

Child denied medical treatment due to parents’ religious beliefs. (a) When an investigation of child abuse or neglect by the Department of Human Resources determines that a parent or legal guardian legitimately practicing his or her religious beliefs has not provided specific medical treatment for a child, the parent or legal guardian shall not be considered a negligent parent or guardian for that reason alone. This exception shall not preclude a court from ordering that medical services be provided to the child when the child’s health requires it. (b) The department may, in any case, pursue any legal remedies, including the initiation of legal proceedings in a court of competent jurisdiction, as may be necessary to provide medical care or treatment for a child when the care or treatment is necessary to prevent or remedy serious harm to the child, or to prevent the withholding of medically indicated treatments from disabled infants with life-threatening conditions. Upon application by the department, the court may issue prelitigation or pretrial discovery orders for persons, medical records, and other documents or materials.


DENVER, Feb. 20 — The deaths over the last two years of three Colorado children whose parents denied them medical treatment on religious grounds has fueled support for state legislation that would prevent parents from using their religion as a defense against prosecution.
Frank Daniel, the Mesa County district attorney, had jurisdiction in the cases of the three Colorado children who died. He won a conviction for criminally negligent child abuse, a felony, in 1999 against the parents of an 18-day-old infant who died of meningitis. He declined to prosecute the parents of a 3-day-old infant who died of a heart defect. He said today that he had yet decided what to do in the latest case, involving Amanda Bates, a 13-year-old girl who died of complications of diabetes two weeks ago.


Posted by: Kirk at September 2, 2008 12:18 AM
Comment #260895
Please see Rays links he provided. They tell the story. Apparently you did not look too hard. I did not state the position perfectly. Sorry. The fact remains she believes in creationism and would like it taught in school. I see no place for teaching faith in school, especially in relation with science. That very comparison is a redundancy.

Yet, I am sure you have no problem with them teaching the totally unprovable “Big Bang Theory”.

Posted by: Kirk at September 2, 2008 12:40 AM
Comment #260909

Kirk,

Good Argument Here. All the cases that you are citing are of viable children who need medical attention and so involve medical neglect - not providing basic care which medical care for viable children is basic. In a way you have made my point that parents cannot have a doctor kill their viable child, nor can they kill it themselves, nor can they starve it, or have a doctor starve it. Their rights have been abridged. They can sign DNR (Do not resuscitate), orders and withdraw life support from terminal children.

You also wrote:

Yet, I am sure you have no problem with them teaching the totally unprovable “Big Bang Theory”.
The big bang theory is a real scientific theory with real scientific evidence. Intelligent design is religious belief masquerading as science. It is another way that the Christian fundamentalists right wing extremists are dishonest and slimy. They try to inject religion into the class room under the guise of science.

Posted by: Ray Guest at September 2, 2008 1:06 AM
Comment #260923
All the cases that you are citing are of viable children who need medical attention

Absolutely not. Please look at the first case again. This is a case in Texas of a severly handicapped child that needed lifesaving treatment. A child from an induced abortion


Here is the text of the Bill Obama voted against 3 times.

“(a) In determining the meaning of any Act of Congress, or of any ruling, egulation, or interpretation of the various administrative bureaus and agencies of the United States, the words `person’, `human being’, `child’, and `individual’, shall include every infant member of the species homo sapiens who is born alive at any stage of development.

“(b) As used in this section, the term `born alive’, with respect to a member of the species homo sapiens, means the complete expulsion or
extraction from his or her mother of that member, at any stage of development, who after such expulsion or extraction breathes or has a
beating heart, pulsation of the umbilical cord, or definite movement of voluntary muscles, regardless of whether the umbilical cord has been
cut, and regardless of whether the expulsion or extraction occurs as a result of natural or induced labor, cesarean section, or induced
abortion.

“(c) Nothing in this section shall be construed to affirm, deny, expand, or contract any legal status or legal right applicable to any member of the species homo sapiens at any point prior to being `born alive’ as defined in this section.”.

- The federal Born Alive Infants Protection Act passed unanimously in the U.S. Senate and overwhelmingly in the U.S. House. Sens. Kennedy and Boxer spoke in support on the Senate floor. NARAL expressed neutrality.

- Obama actively opposed nearly identical legislation in Illinois, the only state senator to speak against Illinois’ Born Alive two years in a row.

- In 2003, Obama almost single-handedly stopped nearly identical legislation to the federal Born Alive Act from being introduced in the Illinois Senate as chairman of the Health and Human Services committee.

- The legislation finally passed in Illinois in 2005 – the year after Obama left the Illinois Senate.


Posted by: Kirk at September 2, 2008 1:42 AM
Comment #260942

Since when is Alaska a “small state”. And what the heck does “toxic testosterone” have to do with the issue at hand? In regards to Dr. Rice, has it occured to anyone that maybe she was asked to fill the spot of VP, and said no? What is so insulting about Sarah Palin? She is the Governor of the very large state of Alaska. A state critical to the US because of it’s abundant natural resources, ans well as it’s many installations that form the first line of defense againt Russia, which is only a short hop across the Bering Strait. So she hasn’t been involved in politics for her entire career, so what? Why is that necessarily a bad thing? I think a fresh outlook, and a new point of view that is NOT that of a lifelong career politician is just the ticket for the position of VP. As for her being chosen as VP being an insult to women, only the left wing liberal Democrats could see a woman being nominated to the second highest office in our land as an insult to women. If Senator Obama had chosen Sen. Clinton as his VP, would that be insulting to women too? The fact is, it would not matter who McCain chose as VP, the Democrats would be insulted and hate the person nominated regardless of who it was. It must be a miserable existence to spend ones life in a perpetual state of feeling “insulted”.

Posted by: Roberto at September 2, 2008 8:47 AM
Comment #260952

Rhinehold

So when someone says something that is wrong, illogical, mean-spirited, ignorant, partisan, etc, I try to point it out.

I pretty much gathered all that already. I agree that the country as a whole is the responsibility of all. I understand the civil liberties thing and think that we all have a hand in protecting them. But I also recognize that this country as a whole is made up of 300 million individuals each having personalities, needs and ideologies that vary by individual, family or group of people. Civil liberties seem to be your biggest concern. For me it is the further division of classes and resultant implications, including loss of civil liberties, that seem to drive me the most. I am not happy with the way our government operates or the way the parties seem to conveniently breed and motivate hatreds in the interest of maintaining partisan boundaries so as to keep all us minions arguing amongst ourselves. I think they recognize it and like it, and use it to their advantage.

It appears to me that for you this all seems much more black and white than it does for most of the rest of us. You sometimes seem to lose sight of the fact that we all, including yourself are human. The result is that emotion is going to enter into the equation. When emotion enters we humans are going to say some things that maybe we shouldn’t and we are going to present some points that maybe are not entirely accurate or true in the process. As I have stated before I do agree with a lot of what you have to say, but it sometimes gets very hard to admit that because of what seems a desire or fault on your part to sometimes hate all things human and most of all, all things liberal. For me this seems a bit of an anomaly because you claim to be a person of the middle yet you attack liberalism relentlessly. Attack I think is the key word here. It is the descriptive of that word that creates the perception of what I think Rhinehold is. I guess maybe all I am suggesting through all this observation is that perhaps lightening up a bit in your delivery and consistent direction of attack would garner you a lot more respect on a personal level, as you really do have a lot of good and reasonable argument to offer. Just my two cents. It may very well be that this is the image you aspire to. In that event I apologize for this diatribe. I am a person who is somewhat intrigued by human nuance and am just trying to find the human in you that seems to be missing most of the time, that is at least here in these columns. I am not attempting to judge you, only to understand what drives you.

Posted by: RickIL at September 2, 2008 10:58 AM
Comment #260955

Kirk

K Yet, I am sure you have no problem with them teaching the totally unprovable “Big Bang Theory”

Once again, see Ray’s reply. Thanks Ray.

The big bang is scientific theory and largely accepted in this day and age as fact. The big bang theory is not based on faith in something. I will not be condemned to hell for eternity for not believing in the big bang theory. There is a huge difference in teaching theological faith and scientific theory. No matter how you look at it using a different descriptive in the form of “creationism” is little more than a clever way of bringing religion into the schools. I have nothing against religious groups per say. I think they do much good in this world. I also think they are sometimes the cause of much harm, in indirect and sometimes direct manners. I however find no need to turn our schools into a cult environment that encourages ideologies based solely on nothing more than a book that has been re-written and re-interpreted so many times in so many ways that it for all intent and purposes is far removed from its original content.

Posted by: RickIL at September 2, 2008 11:15 AM
Comment #260984

Rick,

What is Faith? - Simply stated it is the belief in something unprovable.

So, yes the Big Bang Theory is indeed based on Faith as it is unprovable. You can throw all the scientific theories and mathmatical formulas you want to at it but in the end it is still unprovable. Not to mention that evidence continues to arise that start to poke holes in the theory on a regular basis.

Ernst Peter Fischer, a physicist and biologist of Constance, Germany

warning given by [physicist and philosopher] Carl Friedrich von Weizsäcker … namely that a society which accepts the idea that the origin of the cosmos could be explained in terms of an explosion, reveals more about the society itself than about the universe. Nevertheless, the many observations made during the past 25 years or so which contradict the standard model, are simply ignored. When fact and theory contradict each other, one of them has to yield.’6

Halton C. Arp of the Wilson Observatory and the Las Campanas Observatories in California

Since antiquity, ideas of the universe have varied widely, depending on assumptions about factual observations. The current idea of a big bang has been the standard model for about 60 years. But, in the mean time, the number of observations that negate the assumption that the red shift of the light of distant galaxies can be explained by recessive motions, is increasing.’7

Hans Jörg Fahr of the Institute for Astrophysics at Bonn University

‘The universe originated about 20 thousand million years ago in a cosmic explosion (the big bang), it has been expanding ever since, and it will continue to do so until the end of time … This sounds convincing, and it is accepted by all present-day mainstream “natural philosophers.” But it should be obvious that a doctrine which is acclaimed noisily, is not necessarily close to the truth. In the field of cosmology the widely supported big bang theory is not more convincing than other alternatives. In fact, there are surprisingly many alternatives.’9

Dr James Trefil, professor of physics at Mason University, Virginia, who accepts the big bang model

‘There shouldn’t be galaxies out there at all, and even if there are galaxies, they shouldn’t be grouped together the way they are.’ He later continues: ‘The problem of explaining the existence of galaxies has proved to be one of the thorniest in cosmology. By all rights, they just shouldn’t be there, yet there they sit. It’s hard to convey the depth of the frustration that this simple fact induces among scientists.’10

And perhaps most telling are these quotes taken from Stephen Hawkings book “A brief history of Time”

‘We find ourselves in a bewildering world. We want to make sense of what we see around us and to ask: What is the nature of the universe? What is our place in it and where did it and we come from? Why is it the way it is?’2
‘However, if we do discover a complete theory, it should in time be understandable … by everyone, not just a few scientists. Then we shall all … be able to take part in the discussion of the question of why it is that we and the universe exist. If we find the answer to that, it would be the ultimate triumph of human reason—for then we would know the mind of God.’4

You know, maybe science is on to something. The Big Bang Theory may just be man’s attempt to quantify and explain that moment when: In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.

Posted by: Kirk at September 2, 2008 2:09 PM
Comment #261025

You seriously discount Gov Palin as McCains Pick. Mccain made a pick that showcases his ability to think outside the box and kicks wide the doors for women within his own Party. This should be the launchpad for a future Palin Presidential Bid and that is saying something for both of them.
In additiona, Alaska is the first line of defense in our missile interceptor defense system. The 49th Missile Defense Battalion of the Alaska National Guard is the unit that protects the entire nation from ballistic missile attacks. It’s on permanent active duty, unlike other Guard units.
As governor of Alaska, unlike nearly all other States, Palin is briefed on highly classified military issues, homeland security, and counterterrorism. She’s also the commander in chief of the Alaska State Defense Force (ASDF), a federally recognized militia incorporated into Homeland Security’s counterterrorism plans.
Palin is privy to military and intelligence secrets that are vital to the entire country’s defense. She can be entrusted with our national security, because she already is.

Posted by: EddieJ at September 2, 2008 5:11 PM
Comment #261044

When he was confronted with these truths, Biden withdrew from the nomination race on September 23, 1987, saying his candidacy had been overrun by “the exaggerated shadow” of his past mistakes.
Posted by: Joe Biden Insults Us All at September 2, 2008 05:33 PM

Thanks for revealing some of Biden’s shadows. I would welcome more of your research.

Posted by: Jim M at September 2, 2008 6:30 PM
Comment #261069

Kirk

You know, maybe science is on to something. The Big Bang Theory may just be man’s attempt to quantify and explain that moment when: In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.

You are by all means entitled to believe or not what you please Kirk. Your faith is of the dogma variety. Mine is of scientific theory. Two entirely different parameters. Your statement above reflects exactly why I would not want creationism taught in any schools my children would attend. Such conjecture is better off kept in the church. Teach it in Sunday school to those who wish to apply theological faith to the unknown. I prefer to deal with things I can verify within a reasonable doubt. In the meantime I will keep an open mind to new verifiable discoveries which may come over the horizon. Even those of a religious nature if some sort of credible proof should appear. In the meantime logic says that the notion of some sort of righteous being holding the billions of people who have maybe not worshiped his very being accountable is little more than hog wash. That may be good for you, but I refuse to succumb to a fear induced lifestyle. And despite all this I am indeed a good, happy, well balanced, responsible, giving and caring person who also is a father with two fine responsible young men.

Posted by: RickIL at September 2, 2008 8:49 PM
Comment #261148
what seems a desire or fault on your part to sometimes hate all things human and most of all, all things liberal.

That’s just it, I don’t hate easily and find it an ugly word. I save that people who really deserve it, and no one on this blog deserves it that I am aware of.

I pinpoint the left partially because I was a democrat at one time. I left the party while working for the Dukakis campaign because of what the party had started becoming, and is increasingly becoming now, by allowing the personal destruction to seep in. I don’t see much point in attacking Republicans on this site because there is an ABUNDANCE of people here ready to do that. But when the other side starts making completely hypocritical and just plain wrong statements, I will make sure they are countered, if not by someone else then by me.

And to be hoenst, starting with being told I was racist for not being insprired by Obama’s speech and then seeing the attacking that was done against Palin, way way way over the top as it was, I am being very hard on those now who think it is ‘ok and fun’ to destroy a person that they disagree with politically. It’s not good for anyone.

But you won’t find me saying ‘yeah, me too’ on a lot of things because I don’t see the benefit to that on here to be honest. That may make it appear that I do nothing but attack others, but I don’t dislike or ‘hate’ anyone here and I am not attacking them, but their ideals and statements when they need to be attacked.

Posted by: Rhinehold at September 3, 2008 1:07 AM
Comment #261175
That may be good for you, but I refuse to succumb to a fear induced lifestyle.

Rick,

I have absolutely nothing to fear I know what is in store for me.

Posted by: Kirk at September 3, 2008 9:18 AM
Comment #261192

Kirk,

I saw you there. I am finally getting back to you. You wrote:

Absolutely not. Please look at the first case again. This is a case in Texas of a severly handicapped child that needed lifesaving treatment. A child from an induced abortion.
I don’t see where it says that the the child was from an induced abortion but I will take your word for it. The doctors determined that the baby was viable and treated it. So what. There is always going to be a gray area. For example, if you get your way the gray area will be: is it legal for me to masturbate on the ground. Those sperm have the potential to be human. The Bible says its a sin. Chances are this baby was a misdiagnosed 3rd trimester baby that was mistakenly aborted and the doctors made the correct judgment call. It does not change the fact that the law you are advocating for is an underhanded attempt to make an end run around the Constitution. Quoting your quote of the law:
In determining the meaning of any Act of Congress, or of any ruling, egulation, or interpretation of the various administrative bureaus and agencies of the United States, the words `person’, `human being’, `child’, and `individual’, shall include every infant member of the species homo sapiens who is born alive at any stage of development
“Born alive at any stage of development”… In other words a blastocyst is a human being. It is tissue with no brain, no spinal column, no heart beat, no respiration, (“God has not breathed the breath”… …”into it.”) just like my sperm laying on the ground there, but it is a human being??? By definition of that law if a woman miscarries at 1 week, the blostocyst is born alive and doctors must make every effort to find it and keep it alive. I am a mystical, nihilistic, atheist, but thank God Obama had the political courage to stand up to this slimy attempt to legalize the de facto governmental raping of women.

Posted by: Ray Guest at September 3, 2008 10:44 AM
Comment #261309

Kirk,

You wrote:

So, yes the Big Bang Theory is indeed based on Faith as it is unprovable. You can throw all the scientific theories and mathmatical formulas you want to at it but in the end it is still unprovable. Not to mention that evidence continues to arise that start to poke holes in the theory on a regular basis.
There is scientific evidence supporting the big bang. The big bang was not a big bang in space. It was a rapid expansion of space which was probably infinite to begin with. More specifically, it was a rapid expansion of the space contained within our known universe. There will no doubt be new explanations of how and why the expansion happened. But the fact that it did happen 14 billion years ago is a proven fact. We can see 14 billion light years in all directions. Objects further away have receded from us faster then the speed of light. Nothing can travel through space faster than the speed of light. Objects recede faster than light because the space expands in between like ants on an inflating balloon move away from each other even though they stand still. I could write a much longer explanation. The big bang theory is separately and independently supported by cosmology, physics, astronomy, and chemistry - to name a few. There is no scientific evidence in support of creationism - none - absolutely none - not from any branch of science.

I will not answer any more comments on this subject in this thread since I intend to write separate articles as responses to the abortion and science debate here. For readers looking for my response to comments here I will post new links my new articles when they are written and posted.

Posted by: Ray Guest at September 3, 2008 8:09 PM
Comment #261322
“Born alive at any stage of development”… In other words a blastocyst is a human being. It is tissue with no brain, no spinal column, no heart beat, no respiration, (“God has not breathed the breath”… …”into it.”) just like my sperm laying on the ground there, but it is a human being??? By definition of that law if a woman miscarries at 1 week, the blostocyst is born alive and doctors must make every effort to find it and keep it alive. I am a mystical, nihilistic, atheist, but thank God Obama had the political courage to stand up to this slimy attempt to legalize the de facto governmental raping of women.

Nice try Ray, but I see you choose to ignore paragraph (b) of the law, so that you could make your baseless and intellectualy dishonest statement above.

Now here is the part you ignored which blows your statement above completely out of the water.

As used in this section, the term `born alive’, with respect to a member of the species homo sapiens, means the complete expulsion or
extraction from his or her mother of that member, at any stage of development, who after such expulsion or extraction breathes or has a
beating heart, pulsation of the umbilical cord, or definite movement of voluntary muscles,
regardless of whether the umbilical cord has been
cut, and regardless of whether the expulsion or extraction occurs as a result of natural or induced labor, cesarean section, or induced
abortion.

Posted by: Kirk at September 3, 2008 9:39 PM
Comment #261323
The big bang was not a big bang in space. It was a rapid expansion of space which was probably infinite to begin with. More specifically, it was a rapid expansion of the space contained within our known universe.

Ray, yes I know what the Big Bang Theory states and the choice of the name “Big Bang” is really not a good name for the theory at all and to the layman is rather misleading.

But the fact that it did happen 14 billion years ago is a proven fact.

So, you know more than Stephen Hawking and the other scientists I quoted above, not to mention the multitude that I didn’t quote who say the theory is not proven and has definate holes in it?


The big bang theory is separately and ndependently supported by cosmology, physics, astronomy, and chemistry - to name a few.

Yes the theory is indeed supported by these sciences but in no way proven by them. In fact as time goes on new discoveries and measurements taken with more sophisticated and accurate tools by these sames sciences are poking holes in the theory.


There is no scientific evidence in support of creationism - none - absolutely none - not from any branch of science.

At least none that you will recognize because to do so would require you to admit that the Creation Theory must at least be considered. So, just keep your blinders on.


Posted by: Kirk at September 3, 2008 9:57 PM
Comment #261326

Sarah Palin is a power monger who would do anything to get that #1 spot. I am afraid if they let her moose-hunting desperate housewife wannabe butt in the White House she will poison Mccain if not give him a heart attack by uncovering all her skeletons (lies)to the media. She is not the mother of that little ugly baby. She is not the mother of any children. They “mother” themselves! Their Myspace pages tell it all! http://roseburner.blogspot.com///She is a failure as a person and a failure as a leader in general.

P.S. Has anyone here ever seen that baby move?

Posted by: Roseburner at September 3, 2008 11:01 PM
Comment #261374
Sarah Palin is a power monger who would do anything to get that #1 spot. I am afraid if they let her moose-hunting desperate housewife wannabe butt in the White House she will poison Mccain if not give him a heart attack by uncovering all her skeletons (lies)to the media. She is not the mother of that little ugly baby. She is not the mother of any children. They “mother” themselves! Their Myspace pages tell it all! http://roseburner.blogspot.com///She is a failure as a person and a failure as a leader in general.

P.S. Has anyone here ever seen that baby move?

WOW!!

Just when you think the left can’t possibly be more degenerate in their disgusting personal attacks one of them prostitutes themself even further in an effort to destroy personally what they fear they can’t defeat on merrit.

Posted by: Kirk at September 4, 2008 1:16 AM
Comment #261470

Ray Guest has said he will make no further comment so I don’t expect his response. He said, “It was a rapid expansion of space which was probably infinite to begin with. More specifically, it was a rapid expansion of the space contained within our known universe.”

Ray, I find it just as easy to wrap my mind around infinity as I do around my concept of an infinite God creator. Unlike you, I am not left wondering about creation. I know that the fact of creation and the existence of matter implies a creator. Your science as well as mine teaches that order does not come from disorder, that matter does not come from nothing. To believe that at one moment there was nothing and in the next moment there is everything defies scientific logic and learning just as much as believing that all matter has existed for all time, having no beginning.

Posted by: Jim M at September 4, 2008 2:16 PM
Comment #261663

Alaska Gov National Security Experience
Alaska is the first line of defense in our missile interceptor defense system. The 49th Missile Defense Battalion of the Alaska National Guard is the unit that protects the entire nation from ballistic missile attacks. Itʼs on permanent active duty, unlike other Guard units.
As governor of Alaska, unlike nearly all other States, Palin is briefed on highly classified military issues, homeland security, and counterterrorism. She’s also the commander in chief of the Alaska State Defense Force (ASDF), a federally recognized militia incorporated into Homeland Security’s counterterrorism plans.
Palin is privy to military and intelligence secrets that are vital to the entire country’s defense. She can be entrusted with our national security, because she already is.

Posted by: Bump This at September 5, 2008 8:06 AM
Comment #261700

A good debate is still going on here. I don’t have time to keep up with it all. I need to work on Obama’s campaign. I want to get on to my other articles about science and abortion. Not too many people are going to read this far down into the commentary thread. So it is better to move there debates up to new articles so that they will be more visible.

Bump,

I may quote this comment and others in my next article.

I like Sarah Palin. I agree that she has some experience. All governors have some national security responsibilities. Hers is relatively insignificant. All Senators deal with international, defense, and national issues as well. Barrack Obama has more experience than she does. He has played on a national stage. He has played on a state level stage from a much larger state. He has played on a city level stage from a much larger city than her whole state. He has ran a major national campaign in every state and territory and has ran it well. He has been extensively vetted by the people, the other Dem candidates, and the Repubs. Experience is nice. He has it. I do not believe that this election should be about experience. I believe it should about judgment. Biden and McCain have more experience. McCain is no good. Biden is only going to be VP. None the less the Repubs tried to make this election about experience. The point of this article is that there were much more accomplished woman that could have been chosen. No one has disputed that and the fact McCain chose such a completely untested VP puts the lie to his assertion that experience is the most important consideration and reveals impulsive bad judgment. She was not seriously considered until five days before she was picked. Apparently he wanted the Dino Lieberman or Ridge and could not get them. A well ran campaign would have known who was available to “get” a long time ago. It shows once again that his campaign is not well ran. If he cannot run a campaign, we do not want him running this country.

See: Sarah Palin Is A Russian Spy
See my article titled: Judgment??? or… Experience???

Posted by: Ray Guest at September 5, 2008 11:15 AM
Comment #261747

Veritas Vincit,

You wrote:

But no, once again McCain chose a not-too-bright Beauty Contestant to stand at his side. After all, Wife Number One was a pageant winner and professional model — until her car wreck when McCain dumped her for Cindy — the Rodeo Queen and Current Miss Buffalo Chip! Even his lobbyist “friend” Vicki Iseman was a former cheerleader. Now he picks pageant runner-up Ms. Palin-By-Comparison for the Republican VP slot.
Somehow in all of the busyness I missed your excellent comment way back up there. I had forgotten these details of Mccain’s bio and somehow they seemed to get missed at the Repub convention. Mere oversight - I am sure.

Posted by: Ray Guest at September 5, 2008 2:30 PM
Comment #261892

All promised to post links here to my next two articles on Abortion and Science. Here is the article on Abortion. When this article on abortion drops off into the archives this link may no longer work. You can click on my name at the bottom of this article and bring up a list archived articles that I have written.
Should Women Control Their Own Body?

Posted by: Ray Guest at September 6, 2008 11:15 AM
Comment #263407

You want to know what’s really insulting?

That Democrats assume that women’s political positions revolve around their gender.

I am MORE than my gender. I am not a victim. I neither need nor want the government’s help to order my life. I can do that myself.

The identity politics that Democrats play take individual humans and turn them into statistics. Sick.

Posted by: Typical White Elephant at September 18, 2008 5:07 PM
Comment #263410

Typical White Elephant,

Thanks for your comment. You are angry at Dems but should be angry at the Repubs. They are the ones who think you will vote for someone because they have a uterus. You wrote:

I neither need nor want the government’s help to order my life. I can do that myself.
Which part of: “The Repubs want the government to take forceful control of your reproductive organs.” don’t you understand???

Posted by: Ray Guest at September 18, 2008 5:19 PM
Post a comment