Posted 1 year, 2 months ago in 
Loading ...
In the time since Sarah Palin was nominated as McCain’s running mate, the hypocrisy and shallowness of the liberals, progressives or whatever they call themselves has been on full display.
If Sarah was a liberal her accomplishments would be proclaimed by all on the left. The media would love her. But since she is in fact a Republican, the politics of personal destruction are in full swing against Mrs. Palin.
Obama, the most inexperienced presidential candidate nominated in more than 100 years, gets a pass. He has close ties to a convicted felon, a known terrorist helped launch his career and he has zero experience running a government or company of any size, but this info does not seem to matter to progressives.
Sarah’s hair style, her choice of glasses, her love for her family, her choice to be a mother seem to be a problem for the left.
Good thing most people in this amazing country recognize substance always trumps style. Character, integrity and actual accomplishments win elections, not fancy speeches from empty suits. Thanks to all the progressive for showing that the don’t live what they preach.
JEFF BROCK
Fruita
Liberals show bias in attacks on Palin
Tags:
Share:
Recent Comments
- golfdoc said, "couldn’t have expressed it more clearly mr. park." more
- JMH said, "Scott says, “There is a difference between having religious..." more
- JMH said, "John said, “She’s follwing the Teabagger talking points very..." more
- JMH said, "JMH said, “Sorry guys, but I’ve been called worse and so have..." more
- Rojellio said, "OK, I am confused apparently. The term has nothing to do with..." more
Who's online
- No Members around.
-
Popular Tags
Categories
- General (2554)
- Printed letters (372)
Archives
MOST RECENT
-
Posted 9 hours, 56 minutes ago
Don’t local businesses already get an advantage? -
Posted 10 hours, 1 minute ago
Tort reform critical to health care reform -
Posted 10 hours, 13 minutes ago
Ritter should not be taking monies from veterans -
Posted 10 hours, 30 minutes ago
Remember our lack of representation next November -
Posted 1 day, 8 hours ago
Annexation wrong for Clifton/Fruitval
-
Posted 9 hours, 56 minutes ago
HIGHEST RATED
93 Responses to “Liberals show bias in attacks on Palin”
Posted September 8th, 2008 at 4:41 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
I guess what Mr. Brock is saying is that Al Gore gets to keep the private jet? I understand Sarah Palin put the Alaska Governor’s private jet on eBay. Does that mean she is greener than Al Gore or just smarter?
Posted September 8th, 2008 at 6:44 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
Mr. Brock’s letter is quite interesting, as it would seem he accuses others of “shallowness”. Yet, there is absolutely nothing in his letter but what he accuses others of being guilty. One must therefore ask where the gentleman’s loyalties really lay. It would seem that he has become nothing more than a victim to the creators of the “Palin cult” following.
Ms. Palin is attempting to portray herself as a ‘reformer’, and one of her claims is that she, like Senator McCain, is against ‘pork’. Yet, if one looks at her record, first as mayor, the records would appear to be otherwise. It is my understanding that she took over as mayor of a town of about 7,000 people. When she became mayor, the town had no debt. When she left, the town was in debt. And that is following a ‘hunk of pork’, for which she claimed credit, of about 26 to 27 million. She also claims that she was against the “bridge to nowhere”. Unfortunately, the record does not bear that out. She was ‘for it before she was agin’ it’, and changed her mind only when the project became a subject of ridicule throughout the country as a prime example of “pork”. It is noteworthy that the money was not returned to Washington by Palin. She made sure it stayed in Alaska. Now, Mr. Brock may have a different view, but to me, if an individual is against ‘pork’ they probably should be the first to withdraw themselves from the trough.
As far as positions and the decisions one makes, the last time I checked, do we not have a “decider” now in the oval office. And, is not his sidekick, the vice-president a ’succesful business person’. Why then do we have an economy in shambles, no comprehensive energy policy, a foreign policy in tatters, etc. Perhaps what is most important is not the decision itself but the right decision which is of paramount importance.
Mr. Brock may join the “Palin cult” bandwagon if he must, but he should seriously question why he does so. From the contents of his letter, no really thinking person will be at all impressed or tempted to join him on that ‘bandwagon’.
Posted September 8th, 2008 at 7:04 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
Mr Laitres,
I noticed your continuing references to pork. Are you trying to insinuate that Mrs. Palin is a Muslim? Will this madness never end? Next you will be telling me her middle name is Hussein or that she has a pastor who has said derogatory things about our country. I must admit I don’t understand these continuous attacks on Mrs. Palin’s ability as a parent. To hear you liberals talk about it, one would think that she had been associating with someone that bombed the Pentagon, or her campaign was supported by some Chicago underworld figure. Now I am sure in your heart, you know that such allegations are not true, or at least do not apply to Mrs. Palin. Although I will admit that she has seriously degraded Senator Obama’s cult following, although I hear the German people still like him, and many of his groupies from that trip still refer to him as Mien Herr. I would presume that he would do very well in a run for Chancellor. Perhaps after the November elections. Oh, I am sorry, I seem to have wandered off subject. I believe what we were talking about was John McCain’s pic for VP. Just out of curiosity, do you agree with John B and I that Sarah Palin is just awesome?
Posted September 8th, 2008 at 7:59 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
Mrs. Palin is easy to attack. After all, she has been a mayor, and a goivernor, and has had to make important decisions. Decisions can be criticized. Mr. Obama, on the other hand, has managed nothing and has a record that is miniscule. So his supporters are, indeed, cult followers.
Posted September 8th, 2008 at 8:14 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
Take a look at a kinder gentler version of Governor Palin before the Rove’ians remade her:
http://marcambinder.theatlantic.com/archives/2008/09/palin_on_cspan.php
Notice no sneering, or nastiness, and answering unscripted questions albeit in areas where she is knowledgeable.
Posted September 8th, 2008 at 8:43 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
Satire is a medium which is easily misunderstood, and the pitfalls of using it cannot be underestimated. It is however, very effective in pointing out hypocrisy. Too often if it has to be explained, it becomes an insult. Boys and girls we are engaged in a prescribed process to elect a person who will hold the sum total of all of our lives in the palm of their hands. What should be viewed as the most serious and solemn of personal decisions has deteriorated into nothing more than finger poking, name calling, lies and counter lies. Is it any wonder that no matter which party prevails, that dissatisfaction is almost universally guaranteed. It would seem fitting that the irony of this democracy as well as it’s wonderment is that we survive and excel in spite of ourselves. We base our decisions on false and misleading information and we do so in the company of other such fools. At this time in the electoral process, I try to make time each day to read at least a portion of the Constitution, our Declaration of Independence or the Gettysburg Address. These things remind me that there can be no doubt of divine intervention that is sent by providence and arrives by UPS whenever our people face a crisis, whenever a hero is needed to stand up, then we need only to open the box and remove the packing. How long at the present rate of deterioration of our collective human soul may we rightfully expect that our package will arrive? I fear the day when we can no longer recognize the truth because it is so covered in the mud of deceit and encrusted with the search for power and our box is marked return to sender. Think about it?
Posted September 8th, 2008 at 8:47 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
rm,
those videos are no longer available it says when you go to the site.
Posted September 8th, 2008 at 8:51 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
AP,
I just clicked on the link and it worked. Try again. It really does give a nice impression of SP circa Jan 08.
Posted September 8th, 2008 at 9:00 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
I’ve got to admit that there’s seems to be a lot of inconsistency from the left regarding Ms. Palin. It seems it comes mostly from feminist circles. Am I wrong here? Feminists have pushed hard to see women advance to places of power and prestige. Hillary Clinton was applauded for her drive and life as a “strong woman.” Some have sneered at Ms. Palin’s resume and scorned her having her youngest child at the convention as a publicity op. Would feminists be saying the same if the woman was a liberal Democrat? Is there a true double standard from the feminists or not?
Posted September 8th, 2008 at 9:18 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
rm,
The videos come up on the site but when you try to play them it says they aren’t available.
Posted September 8th, 2008 at 9:34 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
Scott,
I tried again and they played fine. Do you have Adobe flash player 9 installed on your computer?
Posted September 8th, 2008 at 10:01 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
I have an Adobe Flash player. I don’t know what version.
I went to Youtube and searched, found them and I’m watching them now.
Posted September 8th, 2008 at 10:11 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
Sad that she repeats the falsehood about the captain of the Exxon Valdez. You’d think someone in her position would be more informed.
Posted September 8th, 2008 at 10:25 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
Scott, pardon my ignorance, what did she say about the Exxon Valdez?
Posted September 8th, 2008 at 10:36 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
In the first part of the video that rm referenced, they were discussing the Supreme Court appeal of the Exxon Valdez case. She described the incident as a drunk captain ramming his ship onto the rocks. That is not at all what happened.
Hazelwood was not even on the bridge at the time of the incident. He was not driving the ship with one hand on the wheel and the other on the bottle, as popularly described. The third mate was on watch at the time, and had told the captain that he had the situation under control. He delayed making a course change while trying to determine his position and the ship hit the reef. It was inexperience that caused the problem, not alcohol.
Now, the captain is responsible for what happened, no question. But alcohol had nothing to do with causing the accident.
Posted September 8th, 2008 at 10:47 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
Scott,
Roger that, thanks for the information.
Posted September 8th, 2008 at 10:55 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
Scott,
Wow you are right. Another fib slipped right by me. Captain Hazelwood was found not guilty of being intoxicated at the time of the grounding. His subordinates were in charge of operating the ship at the time of the disaster. He obviously has some culpability in this incident but SP’s smooth delivery convinced me that he was directly involved in the incident. I still think she is less strident in these videos then during her RNC address.
Posted September 8th, 2008 at 11:00 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
There is a question regarding Hazelwood in part 3 of the C-SPAN video where she says it was proven he was drunk. Not so.
He had a history of alcoholism, and one of the Coast Guard officers reported smelling alcohol once he got on board, several hours after the incident. That’s as far as the alcohol charges got.
Posted September 8th, 2008 at 11:25 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
Just as an aside, in the early nineties Joe Hazelwood was teaching Bridge Watchstanding at SUNY Maritime College. I’ve always liked the irony of that.
Posted September 9th, 2008 at 7:50 am Login to Send PM Report this comment
rm, not sure what you are trying to prove with these videos.
Posted September 9th, 2008 at 8:01 am Login to Send PM Report this comment
XSBC,
I understand your point, but at the same time I don’t think it’s fair to lump feminists into one group, especially when it comes to politics. I’ve read a lot of “shame on you, feminists, for not supporting a female candidate”-type articles over the past couple of weeks; what bothers me about them is that they seem to call for more sexism. If feminists support female political candidates just because they’re women, that’s sexism and smacks of an inability to think deeply or critically about women on an individual basis.
I’m happy to be a feminist myself, but that’s just one of many identifiers that mark me (and, I would argue, all feminists). I’m not a supporter of Palin, but that has much more to do with her stances on reproductive issues, creationism/evolution, and the war than it does her resume or whether her children attend political events.
Posted September 9th, 2008 at 8:06 am Login to Send PM Report this comment
bullishfrog,
“rm, not sure what you are trying to prove with these videos.”
Nothing. As I said in message 5 it it was reassuring to see a reasonable version of SP as opposed to the odious Rovian attack dog mode of the convention speech. I thought others might like to see this also. Now if attack dog mode is your cup of tea thats something else.
Posted September 9th, 2008 at 8:18 am Login to Send PM Report this comment
rm, I’m sure that this is not your first election. Attacking the opposition is standard operating procedure, particularly for the VP candidate.
Posted September 9th, 2008 at 8:58 am Login to Send PM Report this comment
bullishfrog states: “I’m sure that this is not your first election. Attacking the opposition is standard operating procedure, particularly for the VP candidate.”
This sounds like “we have always done it this way.” Well, perhaps we should change the way we do things. The fact that in other elections this was done, that does not make it in any way right. Mature adults learn by experience and modify their behavior accordingly. It is called ‘growing up’. In elections, the only consideration should be what ideas and direction the candidate is propounding, and nothing else. So, one needs to restrict oneself to issues and how they should be addressed. To do otherwise is to ‘cheapen the discourse’, and that does not at all serve us well.
Posted September 9th, 2008 at 9:12 am Login to Send PM Report this comment
RL, you are a real idealist. Now, I have news for you. The goal is to win the election. And both sides will get as nasty as they need to be to accomplish that goal. Why? Because nasty works. And it is practiced by both sides.
Posted September 9th, 2008 at 9:57 am Login to Send PM Report this comment
bullishfrog states: “RL, you are a real idealist. Now, I have news for you. The goal is to win the election.”
There is nothing wrong with being and ‘idealist’, just as long as one is pragmatic and lives in the ‘real world’, not in a theoretical one. As to the statement that ‘The goals is to win the election’, I would ask him, but what is the objective of winning an election, any election? Whose interests would one or the other ‘winning’ mean, and for whom? It would seem to some of us that an ‘election’ is not like a sports contest, with a very limited objective that matters only on the field. To put it quite bluntly, “politics” is not a game as it affects the lives of others, well beyond the campaigns themselves.
Posted September 9th, 2008 at 10:07 am Login to Send PM Report this comment
The candidate affects the lives of others. The campaign is a means of getting the candidate elected. Perhaps Mr. RL would prefer that his candidate play nice even if it costs him the election.
Posted September 9th, 2008 at 10:14 am Login to Send PM Report this comment
the election this year once again proves to be contentious. my thoughts are, that if obama wins, how does he expect to unite the country. i don’t see it happening. if mccain wins, i see a politician who , at least, has a record of working across party lines. currently, i’m disgusted with how the left is slamming palin’s personal life. candidates should be judged on issues and accomplishments. if they were, obama couldn’t stand up to palin, let alone mccain.
Posted September 9th, 2008 at 10:20 am Login to Send PM Report this comment
bullishfrog states: “The candidate affects the lives of others. The campaign is a means of getting the candidate elected. Perhaps Mr. RL would prefer that his candidate play nice even if it costs him the election.”
Unfortunately, bullishfrog misses the point. Yes, the campaign is the process by which a candidate gets elected. But that is not as far as it goes. What does it mean if a particular candidate gets elected? It is necessary to consider and have the ability to transition to that level as well, if one is to make an intelligent decision in the voting booth. And, it is the latter which needs to be the determining factor, not the candidate or party itself.
The negative and destructing campaigning will continue only as long as the voter tolerates it. Most of it is based on ‘appeal to emotion’ as opposed to ‘reason and logic’. And, as long as so many are guided by emotion in their decisions, we can expect nothing less than what we now have. I would ask bullishfrog how he makes decisions in his personal or business life. Is it ‘purely’ by emotion, or does he look at facts and reality? One would would hope that it would be the latter. If it is, he is then doing the right thing. The same must be done when determining how one votes.
Posted September 9th, 2008 at 10:31 am Login to Send PM Report this comment
golfdoc states: “i’m disgusted with how the left is slamming palin’s personal life. candidates should be judged on issues and accomplishments.”
Personal life should not be an issue. But, if one candidate him/herself brings it into the campaign, either to gain ’sympathy’ or other reason, that is a problem he/she has created. If one does not wish to have it discussed, then don’t bring it up.
As to accoplishments. Perhaps golfdoc might wish to look a littele further into what governor Palin has really accomplished, and not only the fact that she was ‘elected’ to one office or another. Some of us are not greatly impressed by her record. And, as the ’spin’ begins to unwind, more and more so.
She made a great show of her ‘decision making’. So, what were the decisions she made? Were they ‘wise and smart ones’, in the interests of the people she served, or were they more self-serving? Anyone can make a decision. We all do. The important thing is to make an intelligent and reasoned decision. And, in public office, that is to make them in the interests of the constituency. Anything else is self-serving.
Posted September 9th, 2008 at 11:24 am Login to Send PM Report this comment
GolfDoc: “i’m disgusted with how the left is slamming palin’s personal life. candidates should be judged on issues and accomplishments.”
Accomplishments? What Accomplishments????
Do you mean her total lack of experience in foreign affairs? Do you mean her attempt to fire the librarian who declined to censor books Palin was against? Do you mean her stance on teaching religion (creationsism) in the public schools? Do you mean her canning of the man who refused to fire her ex-brother in law against whom she has a vendetta? Do you mean her lies about how she sold the governors aircraft? do you mean her turnabout on her support of the “bridge to nowhere” when it became politically expedient? Do you mean her desire to drill anywhere in Alaska, to hell with the polar bears and envirnmental considerations? Do you mean… Well I could go on in this vein for quite awhile. I am unaware of any accomplishments at all which qualify her to be a heartbeat away from our next president.
Posted September 9th, 2008 at 12:15 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
RL: “I would ask bullishfrog how he makes decisions in his personal or business life. Is it ‘purely’ by emotion, or does he look at facts and reality? One would would hope that it would be the latter. If it is, he is then doing the right thing. The same must be done when determining how one votes.”
I look at facts and reality. Negative campaigning is not aimed at folks like me or RL. They are aimed at the uninformed. Unfurtunately, too many voters are uninformed and their decision on who to vote for is, in fact, made on emotion. But that is reality.
Posted September 9th, 2008 at 12:18 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
Class and RL bring up the issue of Palin’s inexperience and they question her accomplishments.
This is why her choice for VP was such a stroke of genious. Anytime these questions are raised aboout our VP candidate, the “independent” voter is reminded that the exact same questions are legitimately raised about their presidential candidate.
Posted September 9th, 2008 at 12:31 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
It is not Palin’s inexperience that troubles me so much, or making a gaffe here or there.
It is her extreme religious right positions. Especially opposing abortion even in the case of rape and incest.
I do not understand why feminists are expected to support her — just because she is a woman? That makes no sense.
Many women are against women’s rights, and Palin is one of them. Therefore she is not going to get the feminist vote.
Posted September 9th, 2008 at 1:25 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
Ash, her personal beliefs regarding abortion are just that, her personal beliefs. They are in line with the beliefs of Republican presidents since, at least, Ronald Reagan. And those beliefs have not had any effect on the law concerning the legality of abortion, despite the fact that most supreme court justices currently in office have been appointed by Republicans.
I am, personaly, for a woman’s right to choose. But I do not condemn those whose religious beliefs lead them to oppose abortion as long as they do not infringe on my rights or the rights of the women in my family.
Now, when it comes to personal beliefs, I certainly question those of someone who belonged to the church of Rev. Wright for 20 years and, not only sat through his hate-filled sermons, but looked up to him.
Posted September 9th, 2008 at 1:45 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
Bullish, I am just commenting on a previous poster’s incredulity that Ms. Palin would not be supported by feminists.
Whether of not a politician supports a woman’s right to choose is certainly a valid consideration when deciding whether to support a candidate or not.
At any rate it is not Palin’s gender that should determine her support or lack of it.
Many people, I’m sure love the fact that she would force a girl who was raped to have the baby.
I for one will never support any politician who is this extreme on the abortion issue; not to mention supporting book burning and wanting creationism taught in schools.
If McCain is elected and dies within four years I believe Palin’s personal extreme religious beliefs would affect her decision making.
Posted September 9th, 2008 at 1:50 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
Ash: “I for one will never support any politician who is this extreme on the abortion issue; not to mention supporting book burning and wanting creationism taught in schools.”
If you are referring to Palin, these are lies being spread about her:
http://www.newsweek.com/id/157986
Posted September 9th, 2008 at 2:02 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
The Newsweek article (as well as several others) actually supports the contention that she would like to see creationism taught and inquired about having books banned from the library.
Posted September 9th, 2008 at 2:31 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
This is what the Newsweek article says:
“Palin has not pushed for teaching creationism in Alaska’s schools. She has said that students should be allowed to “debate both sides” of the evolution question, but she also said creationism “doesn’t have to be part of the curriculum.”
I don’t read that to mean that she would propose that Creationism be taught in schools. In the end, that is what really matters.
Ash, her choice for VP was not intended to sway your vote. You would not vote for the ticket no matter who was chosen for VP. It was also not intended to sway my vote. But it has done wonders to bring the Christian right on board, because of her religious beliefs, and to bring independents on board because she is a very likeable individual and because she is a woman. And, so far at least, the polls show that it’s working for McCain. Among independents, McCain now has a 15% lead. Furthermore, Palin has a higher approval rating than either McCain or Obama.
Posted September 9th, 2008 at 2:49 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
Proves my point. She would like to see creationism included, and said as much … she just said she wouldn’t try to force it. It would be a losing battle.
of course I won’t vote for the ticket. I am against the party of warmongers. Adding this extreme religious right element just makes it all the more distasteful to me. But hey, obviously other people disagree.
Posted September 9th, 2008 at 2:55 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
bullishfrog,
From a scientific standpoint, there aren’t two sides to the evolution question at all. The only ones who claim there is are the one’s trying to get creationism or it’s newest incarnation, Intelligent Design, taught in schools because they have no science to back it up in scientific circles.
That’s why Palin’s stance on evolution is so important. Not because anyone cares what she thinks about it, but because it shows that she is willing to put her beliefs ahead of the facts.
Would you consider her a valid candidate for VP if she believed the earth was flat?
Posted September 9th, 2008 at 3:14 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
Bloch, thank you for your perspective. I would agree that it is a grievous error to lump every feminist in the ‘extreme’ camp. It seems that many of the high-profile feminists of the last few decades have been sexist based on an apparent double standard based on political agenda. I think it’s just that politics will eventually corrupt the roots of any well-meaning movement. Thanks again.
Posted September 9th, 2008 at 3:27 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
And, while I am not a proponent of creationism being TAUGHT in school, would we not be a better society if creationism was at least allowed to be presented in DISCUSSION in schools? Any position presented as dogma — whether evolution OR creationism — is not healthy. We are a weaker society when youth are taught WHAT to think and not HOW to think. Learning how to think requires that all sides of a position be presented, debated and then left to the conscience of the individual.
Posted September 9th, 2008 at 3:39 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
Scott, I respect other people’s religious beliefs even if I disagree with them. For Mrs. Palin to propose that creationism be taught in the schools would be political suicide. This issue is being used as a scare tactic.
Posted September 9th, 2008 at 4:16 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
XSBC,
We must remember that Evolution vs Creationsism is apples vs oranges. You believe in Creationism but accept the theory of Evolution. Creationism is religion, the Theory of Evolution is science. So any discussion has to be couched in those terms.
Posted September 9th, 2008 at 4:19 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
XSBC,
That depends on where you discuss it. In Comparative Religion class - no problem. In Science class, no. Creationism is not science, plain and simple. In science, you look at the data and see what conclusion fits it. In creationism, you start with your conclusion and only accept data that seems to support that conclusion. Look at the mission statements of Answers in Genesis, Institute for Creation Research or Creation Research Society. They state right up front that they do not accept evidence that does not support a literal interpretation of the bible.
The debate has been over for a long time. Should we teach the “controversy” over round earth vs. flat earth and let the individual decide? How about wave/particle nature of photons vs. the aether? These debates are just as settled as creation vs. evolution. The difference is that a round earth and the dual nature of sub-atomic particles don’t conflict with some people’s religious beliefs.
bullishfrog,
Maybe so, but the fact that she has admitted she would prefer the one over the other says quite plainly that she does not let inconvenient evidence get in the way of her beliefs. Personally, I don’t someone like that as president.
Posted September 9th, 2008 at 4:29 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
Backin up a topic. There is no set of political stripes that defines a “feminist.” We are Republicans, Democrats, and “Other.” Many are even anti-choice. And many are men.
But one thing I believe a true feminist would NOT do is vote for someone just because they are, or are not, a woman.
Posted September 9th, 2008 at 4:41 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
Scott, I just got an e-mail being circulated by folks trying to demean Mrs. Pailin where they claim she tried to ban a whole bunch of books from her library. It is a lie. I checked it out on Snopes. What some are doing to her now is what others tried to do to Obama on things like his islamic faith. Democrats were upset about that but are now doing the same thing to Palin. It is sick.
Maybe you are concerned that if Mrs. Palin became president she would somehow force the Mesa County schools to teach creationism. I’m not.
Posted September 9th, 2008 at 4:43 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
bullishfrog - You said, “Scott, I respect other people’s religious beliefs even if I disagree with them. For Mrs. Palin to propose that creationism be taught in the schools would be political suicide. This issue is being used as a scare tactic.”
If several Alaska newspapers are correct, Sarah Palin proposed teaching creationism in Alaska public schools almost a year ago. A scare tactic, indeed!
Posted September 9th, 2008 at 4:45 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
Ash -
I believe the ‘anti-choice’ people you refer to prefer to be called, “Pro-Life”…You wouldn’t want people calling us “Anti-Life”, would you?
As for Mrs. Palin, while I don’t know whether she’s any more or less qualified than anyone else who’s held the VP’s office (For goodness sake, does anyone remember Dan Quayle?), I find it funny that the qualities the Republicans reviled in Hillary Clinton as being a “b*tch” are lauded in Mrs. Palin, as a “tough cookie”. Of course, the flip side is true when it comes to the Democrat’s characterizations of Mrs. Palin.
Posted September 9th, 2008 at 4:50 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
Curmudgeon, most people who call themselves “Pro life” also support politicians who engage in preemptive war. The term is just far too inaccurate.
Posted September 9th, 2008 at 4:51 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
bullishfrog,
I’m not concerned about her trying to get creationism taught. I’m concerned about someone who thinks that creationism deserves equal standing with actual science being that close to the Presidency.
Posted September 9th, 2008 at 4:55 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
ULLR: “If several Alaska newspapers are correct, Sarah Palin proposed teaching creationism in Alaska public schools almost a year ago. A scare tactic, indeed!”
That is a lie. This is what she actually said:
“I don’t think there should be a prohibition against debate if it comes up in class. It doesn’t have to be part of the curriculum.”
She added that, if elected, she would not push the state Board of Education to add such creation-based alternatives to the state’s required curriculum.
Posted September 9th, 2008 at 4:56 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
Ash -
Yeah, yeah, I know, and they’re also usually in favor of Capital Punishment.
Posted September 9th, 2008 at 4:57 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
bullishfrog,
The point is that she thinks there is a legitimate debate in the first place.
Posted September 9th, 2008 at 4:59 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
Scott, I don’t discriminate against Christians. And I don’t believe that anyone should be disqualified for their personal beliefs as long as they do not infringe on my rights. If Barak Obama was a muslim, I would not use that as an issue against him. If Sarah Palin believes in what the bible says, I do not find that troubling even if I don’t agree with it.
Posted September 9th, 2008 at 5:07 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
Why the overwhelming fear of debate on the issue anyway?
Posted September 9th, 2008 at 5:08 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
Hmmm….
Large amount of cut-and-paste…
Insulting another poster…
Making HUGE leaps in logic to make a personal attack…
Does this seem..I dunno…*familiar* to anyone else?
Posted September 9th, 2008 at 5:12 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
bullishfrog,
I don’t seem to be communicating my point very well.
I’m not discriminating against her because she is a Christian, or because she believes the bible. I’m not discriminating against her at all, as a matter of fact.
According to the information I have seen, Sarah Palin believes that there is a legitimate debate on whether creation of evolution is true. That indicates a tendency for her to maintain her existing beliefs in preference to contrary evidence.
In my opinion, that is not a good quality for a potential president to have. That’s all I’m saying.
Posted September 9th, 2008 at 5:16 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
Scott, I understand what you are saying.
Let me just leave it at this. If the choice is between someone who believes in the bible and someone who believes in the teachings of the honorable Rev. Wright, I’ll take the bible.
Posted September 9th, 2008 at 5:21 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
Class said:
Do you mean her total lack of experience in foreign affairs?
And could you tell us what Obama’s experience is in foreign affairs?
Do you mean her stance on teaching religion (creationsism) in the public schools?
She wants both creationism and evolution taught.
Do you mean her lies about how she sold the governors aircraft?
She didn’t lie. All she said was, “I put it on Ebay”. And she did, but there was only on serious bid, and that was too low. So it didn’t sell there, but it was sold to a businessman from Valdez named Larry Reynolds, who paid $2.1 million for the jet,
to hell with the polar bears
Polar bears are not endangered.
Bullishfrog said: Scott, I don’t discriminate against Christians. And I don’t believe that anyone should be disqualified for their personal beliefs as long as they do not infringe on my rights. If Barak Obama was a muslim, I would not use that as an issue against him. If Sarah Palin believes in what the bible says, I do not find that troubling even if I don’t agree with it.
I agree with you bullishfrog.
Posted September 9th, 2008 at 5:21 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
If that’s what you think I’m saying, then you don’t understand. It has nothing to do with the bible. It has to do with the thought process that she has displayed.
Posted September 9th, 2008 at 5:56 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
XSBC stated: “Any position presented as dogma — whether evolution OR creationism — is not healthy.”
The only problem with the statement is that evolution is NOT being presented as “dogma”. It is a theory based upon scientific observation; i.e. a plausible theory based upon science. Dogma, on the other hand, is not of the same genre at all. Dogma, is unable to be modified. It is an ‘unquestioned truth’. It it is subject to question, it is not dogma. And, if questioned or any doubt cast upon it, any structure that is built upon it, has to collapse.
It would seem to me that most individuals who wish to discuss both would long have come to the recognition of that crucial difference.
Posted September 9th, 2008 at 8:32 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
Scott: “If that’s what you think I’m saying, then you don’t understand. It has nothing to do with the bible. It has to do with the thought process that she has displayed.”
I do understand. Now let me be clear. I would rather have someone in the White House who believes in creation than sommeone who sits in a church for 20 years and listens to hate and lies being spouted by the minister. What thought process is that for a future president?
Posted September 9th, 2008 at 8:51 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
That depends on the person. What effect did that have on Obama? We don’t know. He could be a mini-Rev. Wright. It’s also possible he can’t stand the message Wright sends but continued going for his mother’s sake. (I don’t know if his mother goes to that church also, I’m just using it as an example.)
By believing in creationism, Palin has demonstrated a lack of critical thinking. We already know she is predisposed against challenging her beliefs.
It’s a known bad characteristic versus a potential bad characteristic. What’s the right choice? I don’t know. I do know that Bush is a proponent of creationism, and as a result the US is years behind other countries on stem cell research.
Posted September 9th, 2008 at 9:11 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
Scott: “What effect did that have on Obama? We don’t know.”
He went to that church for 20 years. That’s enough information for me.
Posted September 9th, 2008 at 9:17 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
And she believes in creation. That’s enough for me.
Posted September 9th, 2008 at 9:26 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
Fair enough.
Posted September 9th, 2008 at 9:40 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
Whoa.
We didn’t call each other a single name through all that. Are you sure we’re doing this right?
Posted September 10th, 2008 at 3:12 am Login to Send PM Report this comment
rlaitres said:
“The negative and destructing campaigning will continue only as long as the voter tolerates it. Most of it is based on ‘appeal to emotion’ as opposed to ‘reason and logic’. And, as long as so many are guided by emotion in their decisions, we can expect nothing less than what we now have. I would ask bullishfrog how he makes decisions in his personal or business life. Is it ‘purely’ by emotion, or does he look at facts and reality? One would would hope that it would be the latter. If it is, he is then doing the right thing. The same must be done when determining how one votes.”
these are true words…our political process has deteriorated into a beauty pageant…it’s no longer a matter of electiong the most qualified, it’s whomever has the best smile, speach and charisma…both sides are responsible for personal attacks and this will continue as long as the public maintains a “reality television” mentality…
Posted September 10th, 2008 at 7:14 am Login to Send PM Report this comment
On Senator Obama, bullishfrog states: “He went to that church for 20 years. That’s enough information for me.”
When bullishfrog goes to church, if he does, does he believe that everything spoken from the pulpit is to be believed? When reading a book, does he believe everything in that book? If either or both, he may wish to ask himself the one word question: Why? Is it because he has really thought about it, or has he succumbed to a grievous fault in logic: “Appeal to authority”. It would seem to us that if one ‘blindly’ accepts anything it is because they ‘choose’ to instead of making the effort to keep their mind engaged and actively questioning what one is told and/of what one reads.
Posted September 10th, 2008 at 8:08 am Login to Send PM Report this comment
RL, your response is extremely lame.
If I went to a church where lies and hatred are preached, the way the Rev. Wright has been shown to do, I would not come back. Someone who keeps comming back, year after year, for 20 years, and idolizes that preacher, indicates that he finds the preachings to his liking.
You can make all the excuses you want for Senator Obama on this issue, but it will not wash with your average “independent” voter. And it for this reason that Republicans can go after Obama on the issue of religion in response to the attacks being leveled by Democrats on Palin.
Posted September 10th, 2008 at 8:30 am Login to Send PM Report this comment
Scott & RM:
Sigh. In some senses I have to agree with you. However, I am of the opinion that the creationism as taught in Answers in Genesis, Institute for Creation Research and the Creation Research Society is not only bad science, but bad theology as well. Not all agree with the pop-church culture that the Bible be taken in a literalistic sense when it comes to the origins of the universe. There are some Bible believers who find the observations of science (old age of the universe, geological record, even some tenants of evolutionary theory) to be consistent with the Bible record.
Of course, it’s hard enough to get this debated in the church, much less in the public forum. Forget I said anything.
And, RLaitres, I’m of the impression that there are those who do see evolution as dogma just as those who in the church who treat seven-day-literal-creation as dogma. Secularism can be just a non-theistic form of religion.
One more thing: There are those who are misinformed who equate Intelligent Design with the modern young-earth creationists. That is also apples/oranges.
Posted September 10th, 2008 at 8:39 am Login to Send PM Report this comment
XSBC,
I agree completely about creationism being bad theology as well. I was a Christian for over twenty years, and I had no problems accepting evolution at all. In fact, I came up with what I thought was an extremely clever way of correlating genesis with science.
I don’t know that I agree with evolution being dogmatic. It has the evidence and experimentation to back it up, so it’s not just someone saying “this is what happened.” It isn’t any more dogmatic than E=mc^2.
I also have to disagree with you about ID and creationism. You will find very few proponents of ID who are not YECs as well. The recent Kitzmiller vs. Dover court case showed that the ID textbook they wanted to use was a new edition of a creationist textbook with “Intelligent Design” replacing “creation.” In one case, they goofed and left the word “cdesign proponentist” while replacing the text. ID is a watered down version of creationism that does not mention who the designer is, but it has the same roots and same lack of testable predictions.
Posted September 10th, 2008 at 8:53 am Login to Send PM Report this comment
bullishfrog calls my response “extremely lame”. Perhaps he missed the part where I said that one need not ‘believe’ everything said or written by anyone. In fact, accepting them is to visit violence on ones own mind by turning it over to someone else.
He then goes on with: “And it for this reason that Republicans can go after Obama on the issue of religion in response to the attacks being leveled by Democrats on Palin”
Really? It seem to me that the issue of Senator Obama’s religion came up long before Palin was in the picture. And, one does not judge anyone by the words of another, but by their own actions. Or perhaps bullishfrog believes differently.
As far as ‘god’ goes, everyone has a ‘god’(even bullishfrog) if one defines that being as what is most important in their life. Many people have several, although they don’t recognize that they do.
Posted September 10th, 2008 at 9:09 am Login to Send PM Report this comment
I would like to point out that lies and hatred are preached in a guge number of, if not MOST churches. Usually against people who are homosexual and/or do not believe exactly how (insert church here) believes.
And in the African American community there is a lot of understandable hatred toward the American establishment (and by this I mean the “old white man” politics of barely hidden racism and the military industrial complex that owns Washington, D.C.)
Not everyone in Rev. Wright’s congregation, I’m sure, agrees with the most deplorable things he has said. But sometimes you take the good with the bad … especially in a community where the churches are not just places to worship but part of the goodness and glue that holds people together for a common good; that helps youth to stay on the right path, keeps senior citizens and families from slipping through the cracks of poverty, etc.
I do not fault Obama for his personal affiliation with an entire blessed community that just happened to be headed by an “old guard” and angry Rev. Wright.
Posted September 10th, 2008 at 9:10 am Login to Send PM Report this comment
huge number, not guge number …
Posted September 10th, 2008 at 9:24 am Login to Send PM Report this comment
Ash, I would like to see ad put up by the Obama campaign that takes in the points you made justifying Obama’s membership at the Rev. Wright’s church. That would clinch the election for McCain.
Posted September 10th, 2008 at 9:26 am Login to Send PM Report this comment
And, RLaitres, I’m of the impression that there are those who do see evolution as dogma just as those who in the church who treat seven-day-literal-creation as dogma. Secularism can be just a non-theistic form of religion.
There is an extremely important difference which is critical to the discussion. Evolution is based on evidence and by experimental work which can be examined and repeated by any qualified scientist. Creationism/and or Intelligent Design is based on faith and is thus completely subjective and therefore dogmatic in the true sense of the word. Science is not dogmatic since any currently accepted hypothesis can be overturned by new evidence.
Posted September 10th, 2008 at 9:33 am Login to Send PM Report this comment
Bullish, I am not with the Obama campaign and it is not my intent on this forum to try to convince anyone to vote for him.
My take on the Rev. Wright issue is from the heart; partially from experience. The thoughts I share with you are not attempts at propaganda.
I would be delighted if you wanted to challenge or discuss what I have said, instead of merely pointing out that middle America would not get it (to which all I can say is DUH!!!)
Posted September 10th, 2008 at 9:45 am Login to Send PM Report this comment
Ash stated: “I would like to point out that lies and hatred are preached in a guge number of, if not MOST churches. Usually against people who are homosexual and/or do not believe exactly how (insert church here) believes.”
If one were to discuss the teachings of some of these churches and some of their followers, they would vehemently deny that they preach ‘hate’. And, it is not merely that they can’t admit to it, it is that they can’t even recognize it. They are actually preaching the foundation of hate, which is a belief that their followers are somehow superior to others. And, that those who do not believe as they do are ‘lesser’, and therefore the source of all ‘evil’.
That is why, when looking at many posts, supposedly placed even in this forum, one notes that the most vitriolic attacks are posted by those considering the “most Christian”. To some of us, that denotes the most fatal error in any type of thought, “I can’t be wrong”.
Having come to believe that, their mind cannot be changed. They don’t want it to change. In such a scenario, all effort by such individual is expended, not in broadening their horizons and questioning what they already believe, but in a desperate and panicky effort to ‘not be wrong’. That is why, they will limit their input to listening only to those, and reading only books, taking a position that they already agree with. Anything else is more than anathema to them. It is ‘evil’.
Posted September 10th, 2008 at 9:50 am Login to Send PM Report this comment
Ash, I am not a deeply religious person. And I have not attended religious services at more than a handful of churches other than my own. I have never, ever, heard anything that would be remotely considered to be hateful statements.
I don’t doubt that in many churches, where homosexuality is considered to be a sin, preachers will make negative comments. But what I heard from Reverend Wright was much, much worse than that, in what I, and I am sure many, consider to be deeply anti-American and racist hate speech. And I have to assume that Barak Obama agrees with that (at least publicly), since he was pretty much forced to resign from his church once his preacher’s rants became public.
Posted September 10th, 2008 at 10:04 am Login to Send PM Report this comment
Bullish, growing up in Pontiac, Michigan 30-40 years ago I heard hateful and “deeply anti-American” speech from many African Americans whom I believe were coming from the same state of mind and experience as Rev. Wright has been. Some were teachers and administrators, some were at my dinner table (my dad taught in the public high school); some of this in fact was heard at a black church I went to a few times with a friend.
I have studied and at some level lived the context where these “anti-American” sentiments come from, HOWEVER I in no way defend these statements.
Do these sentiments scare the bejeezus out of the average American? Absolutely. Do they belong to a bygone era? Definitely, and Senator Obama has said so. Black America, like ALL of America needs to put its fear and negativity and hatred behind in order to reach a better future.
Posted September 10th, 2008 at 10:19 am Login to Send PM Report this comment
Ash, I have not attended a “black” church so I cannot dispute your opinion that what we saw with Rev. Wright is typical of many, if not most, black churches.
I certainly agree with the last paragraph. But, because, as you state, “the setiments scare the bejeezus out of the average American”, it is an issue which Republicans have, and will continue to exploit, as a counter to the Palin “religious” criticism. You can disagree with this tactic, but it will be effective.
Posted September 10th, 2008 at 10:24 am Login to Send PM Report this comment
As there has been much discussion about Rev. Wright, I would ask those who wish to comment upon the individuals words, if they have listened to the entire thing, or if they have merely been listening to the ’snippets’ that have made the rounds of the internet and which have been spun on ‘talk radio’. Some of us have, and while we may not agree with the words used, we like to hear things ‘in context’. That quite frequently enables us to discern between what was actually said, vs. what we want to ‘believe’ was said.
Posted September 10th, 2008 at 10:24 am Login to Send PM Report this comment
Oh no! Bullish please do not get the impression that I think Rev. Wright’s sentiments are echoed in black churches. I was pointing out a very limited experience I had as a child in the 1970s.
Honestly I am sorry to say I have not attended a “black” church (meaning a church with a very predominantly black congregation) since then.
When I was a kid I went to church with friends out of curiosity and for social reasons; and in my late teens and early adulthood I went to Mass with my Grandma because she often needed a ride and it made her happy. Since then though, I have not felt the spirit move me through any church doors (unless I was at a wedding).
Posted September 10th, 2008 at 10:29 am Login to Send PM Report this comment
RL … As I have been trying to point out, in addition to the context within Rev. Wright’s speeches there is a greater societal context that the great majority of Americans will not even try to understand.
Posted September 10th, 2008 at 11:10 am Login to Send PM Report this comment
I would agree with Ash, but would go one even one step further. Not only will they not ‘try’ to understand, they do not even recognize the necessity of doing so.
There is a famous saying: “An unexamined life is not worth living.” That is true but, I would carry that even further: An unexamined belief is not worth believing.
Posted September 10th, 2008 at 11:43 am Login to Send PM Report this comment
RLaitres,
I agree, but in my experience most Christians are convinced that they have examined their beliefs. I know I did. It never occured to me that the information I used to examine my beliefs came from subjective sources that had a vested interest in reinforcing those beliefs.
If you ask the average Christian they will almost certainly tell you that they have examined and tested their faith, but if you ask what non-Christian source they tested it against, you will get a blank stare.
Posted September 10th, 2008 at 12:07 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
I would agree with Scott, and is reflective of what one could term ‘intellectual parochialism’. Not knowing anything but that ’small world’, nothing else exists, or can possibly exist outside of it.
That does not apply solely to religion, but in many other areas as well, including that of economics and social theory. The only possible consequence of such so-called ‘thinking’, in any area, is self-indoctrination, brought about by reareading an re-reading the same thing over and over, or selecting only sources with whom they agree and which reinforces their preconceptions.
Posted September 10th, 2008 at 12:33 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
It’s quite obvious that Mr. Laitres in post #90 is speaking directly of evolution, global warming, and just about every other liberal area of worship.
Nothing else, outside of the belief system is allowed to be discussed for the simple reason, “Not knowing anything but that ’small world’, nothing else exists, or can possibly exist outside of it.”
Posted September 10th, 2008 at 7:58 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
Thanks, Scott for the info on ID and creationism. I’ll keep an open mind on that. Also, saying that evolutionists are dogmatic is a generalization; true in some instances (personal experience) and not true in others.
We’ve suffered bad creation theology for many years under the literalistic interpretations applied to the Bible. It’s hurt not only Christianity’s relationship with the scientific community, but also done damage politically (end-times foreign policy) and culturally (rapture’s near; let’s abandon responsibility).
Posted September 10th, 2008 at 9:57 pm Login to Send PM Report this comment
RLaitres and Ash, thanks for understanding!
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.