2008 Presidential Election.

Faye Merci:

Don't feel so much pride in your nation - it's just where your parents fucked. It's what you do that earns pride in a country and a country's pride in you.

I hope you don't mind, but I absolutely love this and it's becoming my signature on another board.

So Mccains running mate might actually be insane
* Palin is strongly anti-choice, opposing abortion even in the case of rape or incest.
* She supported right-wing extremist Pat Buchanan for president in 2000.
* Palin thinks creationism should be taught in public schools.
* She's doesn't think humans are the cause of climate change.
* She's solidly in line with John McCain's "Big Oil first" energy policy. She's pushed hard for more oil drilling and says renewables won't be ready for years. She also sued the Bush administration for listing polar bears as an endangered species—she was worried it would interfere with more oil drilling in Alaska.
* In July of 2008, Sarah Palin became the subject of a state ethics investigation looking into whether she fired a top law enforcement official in her administration because he had failed to dismiss a state trooper who was involved in a divorce with Ms. Palin’s sister.
* Sarah never left the country before July 2007 when she needed to first obtain a passport before visiting Alaskan National Guard troops stationed in Kuwait.
*As mayor of Wasilia, Palin built - as her legacy - a $15 million multi-use indoor ice arena on land that did not belong to the city. It will cost Wasilla at least an additional $1.67 million to acquire the land which the town is attempting to pay for by cutting library services, postponing capital improvement projects, and raising fees.


these two issues blew me away

http://animalrights.about.com/b/2008/08/29/mccains-vp-pick-sarah-palin-no-friend-to-animals.htm

I just kept thinking..are you serious?

Whats driving it home, at least for our family, is that she's using her disabled son to gain sympathy, when she is trodding behind McCain, a man thats voted with Bush to slowly but effectively destroy the rights that families with disabled children have. She was so disgusted (my mom) she had to leave the room(my little brother is autistic)

I think it's laughable that all the Republicans who decided to crucify Jamie Lynn Spears for being a teen mother are now finding ways to justify and sanctify Bristol Palin's pregnancy.

I also think this is proof that schools need to get away from abstinence-only education and teach teens about safe sex. If the poster rep for abstinence-only education has a pregnant teen, it's a pretty good sign that it isn't working.

Just wanted to let you guys have a short laugh about Obama.. When I drive through the lower-class towns in Ohio where almost no one has an education, I see lots of obama signs. BUT when i drive through the higher class towns where there are lots of doctors and scienetists, I see McCain signs! What does that tell you? I'm not kidding, this really happens!

^^ I was just trying to add to DIE! DIE! DIE!'s remarks regarding Palin. That particular issue has been bothering me since it was announced.

To tell you the truth, I thought Palin delivered a better speech than McCain.

sciencefreak897:

Just wanted to let you guys have a short laugh about Obama.. When I drive through the lower-class towns in Ohio where almost no one has an education, I see lots of obama signs. BUT when i drive through the higher class towns where there are lots of doctors and scienetists, I see McCain signs! What does that tell you? I'm not kidding, this really happens!

I live in Alabama, conservative to the very core, and it's only been among more educated people that I have found supporters for Obama. Your post doesn't really tell me anything.

psychochip:

I think it's laughable that all the Republicans who decided to crucify Jamie Lynn Spears for being a teen mother are now finding ways to justify and sanctify Bristol Palin's pregnancy.

I also think this is proof that schools need to get away from abstinence-only education and teach teens about safe sex. If the poster rep for abstinence-only education has a pregnant teen, it's a pretty good sign that it isn't working.

Who says all Republicans crucify Jamie Lynn Spears? I don't remember McCain ever saying anything about her or any other conservative politician ofr that matter. I'm Republican and I find that judgemental.
And, yes, I do think that creationism should be taught in public schools, because it's unfair to only teach evolution, since both are merely theories.

MoreFreshFruit!!:

Who says all Republicans crucify Jamie Lynn Spears? I don't remember McCain ever saying anything about her or any other conservative politician ofr that matter. I'm Republican and I find that judgemental.
And, yes, I do think that creationism should be taught in public schools, because it's unfair to only teach evolution, since both are merely theories.

I'd hardly call evolution a theory, since it's being backed up with evidence, making it a fact. But, if you want, you can call it a theory, but remember, gravity is also sometimes called a theory. But I doubt many of us refuse to acknowledge it's existence.

Creationism is not a scientific theory because it is not backed up with any scientific fact. It is a religious belief. It has never been recognized by any scientific community as a valid scientific method of inquiry or theory. It lacks empirical support or hypotheses. Creationism has been ruled unconstitutional and was not voted as a legitimate scientific theory, because it's purpose was to advance a religious belief. Face it, creationism is instilling religion into schools, which is a violation of people's rights to not have religion enforced upon them.

Quote

In its ruling, the court wrote that for any theory to qualify as scientific, the theory must be tentative, and open to revision or abandonment as new facts come to light. It wrote that any methodology which begins with an immutable conclusion which cannot be revised or rejected, regardless of the evidence, is not a scientific theory. The court found that creation science does not culminate in conclusions formed from scientific inquiry, but instead begins with the conclusion, one taken from a literal wording of the Book of Genesis, and seeks only scientific evidence to support it.

Quote

The United States National Academy of Sciences states that "creation science is in fact not science and should not be presented as such."[45] and that "the claims of creation science lack empirical support and cannot be meaningfully tested."[45] According to Skeptic Magazine, the "creation 'science' movement gains much of its strength through the use of distortion and scientifically unethical tactics" and "seriously misrepresents the theory of evolution."[46]
For a theory to qualify as scientific it must be:
consistent (internally and externally)
parsimonious (sparing in proposed entities or explanations)
useful (describing and explaining observed phenomena)
empirically testable and falsifiable
based upon controlled, repeatable experiments
correctable and dynamic (changing to fit with newly discovered data)
progressive (achieving all that previous theories have and more)
tentative (admitting that it might not be correct rather than asserting certainty)
For any hypothesis or conjecture to be considered scientific, it must meet at least most, but ideally all, of the above criteria. The fewer which are matched, the less scientific it is. If it meets two or fewer of these criteria, it cannot be treated as scientific in any useful sense of the word.
Scientists have considered the hypotheses proposed by creation science and have rejected them because of a lack of evidence. Furthermore, the claims of creation science do not refer to natural causes and cannot be subject to meaningful tests, so they do not qualify as scientific hypotheses. In 1987 the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that creationism is religion, not science, and cannot be advocated in public school classrooms.[47] Most major religious groups have concluded that the concept of evolution is not at odds with their descriptions of creation and human origins.[48]

from wiki.

MoreFreshFruit!!:

[Who says all Republicans crucify Jamie Lynn Spears? I don't remember McCain ever saying anything about her or any other conservative politician ofr that matter. I'm Republican and I find that judgemental.

I didn't say that *all* Republicans did it, I said that I find it interesting that all of them that *did* are now backpedaling. I often listen to talk radio, and here were a lot of Republican shows that felt the need to drag Jamie Lynn through the muck, but won't do the same to Bristol. It's hypocritical. I'm sorry if that offends you, but that's what I feel.

Really? Every single science teacher I've had told me that evolution is just a theory and that there are still some gaps that don't make it into a complete fact yet. But...wrong topic for this.

Well, psychochip, I'm sorry you feel that way. Talk radio is judgemental in itself without being Republican, so you can put the blame on the talk radio personal, but I know many conservatives who would disagree with them anyway. They don't represent the majority.

MoreFreshFruit!!:

Really? Every single science teacher I've had told me that evolution is just a theory and that there are still some gaps that don't make it into a complete fact yet. But...wrong topic for this.

There is tonnes of evidence that evolution happened.
Creationism should never be taught in a science classroom, that belongs in the religious studies class instead.
There is not a shred of evidence that God exists.

I think it would be extremely dangerous for America to have a vice-president with the view that creationism should be taught next to Darwin's theory.
Sarah Palin represents everything I stand against. She's pro-guns, anti-abortion, pro-death penalty, hunts animals for fun and she clearly does not want American students to be taught progressively in science.

MoreFreshFruit!!:

Really? Every single science teacher I've had told me that evolution is just a theory and that there are still some gaps that don't make it into a complete fact yet. But...wrong topic for this.

Well, psychochip, I'm sorry you feel that way. Talk radio is judgemental in itself without being Republican, so you can put the blame on the talk radio personal, but I know many conservatives who would disagree with them anyway. They don't represent the majority.

A scientific theory is much different than a regular theory. A scientific theory is a hypothesis that has been tested over and over again.In the case of evolution, all evidence found through tests over 100 years has pointed to supporting the theory. There are no absolute truths in science. You cannot prove anything. You can find evidence that does not support the hypothesis. There hasn't been anything to not support the theory of evolution on any level. A scientific theory is accepted as true until someone can find something to not support it.

Creationism, therefore cannot be taught in science classes as the equivalent of evolution. Why? Because evolution is something that can be tested and retested, and maybe in future years, be outdated. You cannot, however, prove or disprove the existance of a higher being. And to say that the world is the way it is because of some higher power is a bit of a cop out because it halts any sort of scientific advancement and inquiry. You could just say something happened because God made it happen...end of story. That sort of thought isn't valuable and in fact is rather dangerous.

Should creationism be taught in schools? Yes, but in an optional religion class.

DIE! DIE! DIE!:

So Mccains running mate might actually be insane

I really think she is. It's come to light that she supports Eagle Forum, a conservative group that , back in the day, opposed equal rights for women; saying that women should be 'full time homemakers'.
There's also some suspicion about her youngest son. In February when she would have been 5/6 months pregnant there is apparently a photo of here looking skinnier than she is now. I think it's been said that her daughter is in the same photo and is wearing a large, baggy sweater that only slightly covers a baby bump. A the same time her daughter mysteriously went missing from school for 4 months. Palin says she had mono.
It's also been noted that when Palin's water broke she was in Texas. She then took an eight hour plane flight back to Alaska (while going through contractions). She went back to work only three days after she had supposedly given birth.
Now I don't care who you are, but you can not go back to work just three days after you give birth. It's just not possible. I also thought (and I don't think I'm mistaken) that a women who is pregnant is advised not to fly, let alone a woman who is giving birth. I don't think that's allowed.
So either Trig is really Bristol's baby, Palin stole Trig from someone else, or Palin is really really insane.

Now I personally can't stand Palin and will scream if she and McCain win the election, but I think that people should stop patronizing her for all this baby mess with her and her daughter. Teenagers do stupid things even if their parents try to teach other wise. I know I have. And I'm sure everyone on this board has done something their parents tried to teach them not to do. It's part of growing up and making your won mistakes.

McCain/Palin are up in the polls.
I hope Joe Biden DESTROYS her in the debates.
I don't have a lot of faith that he will though, because so many people get offended when anyone tries to scrap with her.


And I fully believe Trig is Bristol's child.
No woman would be leaking amniotic fluid and still want to go home to deliver her child.

I honestly think Palin is a few screws loose. Today, in a small discussion with Charlie Gibson, instead of being able to answer or even rephrase the questions he asked her, she just spouted shit that echoed the head-in-the-sand past. She wasn't even on topic half the time. She's so fucking crazy.

Also, I'm disappointed that so many women are voting for her just because she's a woman. (It bummed me out when people did that for Hillary too). It's just sad that you would base an important political decision on genitals alone. To me, that's just as sexist as not voting for a woman because she was a woman. I think the only reason you should vote for a candidate is because they best represent your views about how the country should operate, not because they share your faith or because they have similar sex organs.

Yes;Indeed;True:

Now I personally can't stand Palin and will scream if she and McCain win the election, but I think that people should stop patronizing her for all this baby mess with her and her daughter. Teenagers do stupid things even if their parents try to teach other wise. I know I have. And I'm sure everyone on this board has done something their parents tried to teach them not to do. It's part of growing up and making your won mistakes.

Yes, but there's a big difference when John Q. Public's kid goes out and does something stupid in the name of "teenage rebellion"; it's quite another when a politician who is spouting abstinence-only education is having to present her pregnant teen to the world. Who is she to tell the country what we have to teach our children when she can't even uphold it in her own home? It's hypocracy and it's sick.

I had my own share of teenage hi-jinks as well, but I never had to give my parent's presidential campaign a giant black eye through my actions either.

As for Trig, well. I too was under the impression that pregnant women couldn't fly past the 2nd trimester. Now, I admit that I don't have kids and I'm fuzzy on the particulars of the story but it sounds like complete and utter bullshit, to be honest. And while I'm as feminist as the next person, I will vote for the candidate I feel will best lead my country, no matter their race, religion, or gender, and in this race I feel it is Obama. Plus, as anti-feminist as it sounds, when McCain (whose health is shaky at best and I'm not entirely sure can make it another 4 years) is unable to lead, and the presidency goes to a woman, this woman in particular who has several children, including a special-needs child (the debate over whether it's hers or not is moot, she claims it as hers, so moving on) -- what happens when it comes to the country or her children, especially her special needs child? She'll be crucified either way she goes. If she tends to her family over the country, she'll perpetuate the stereotype and keep any other woman from ever being able to successfully run for office again, because her "maternal instincts" will show that she's unable to do both. But if she chooses her job over her family, she'll still be screwed because family-rights activists will paint her as a frigid, uncaring mother who cares more about her job than her family. It's a no-win situation on her part, and it's a no-win for our country, as it will divide us again.