What Specific Accomplishments/Experience Does Palin Have? [Archive] - Green Grass Forums

View Full Version : What Specific Accomplishments/Experience Does Palin Have?

8182KSKUSH

09-04-2008, 08:35 AM

8182KSKUSH

09-04-2008, 06:39 PM

daihashi

09-04-2008, 06:48 PM

Yeah, I kind of figured that the Obamites wouldn't want to touch this with a ten foot pole. I am still waiting for someone to come on here and make the argument that she does not have enough experience, accomplishments to be selected as VP, oh wait this just in, the new liberal talking point has now shifted slightly, now it's that she was not properly "vetted". Oh, ok.:thumbsup:

I've asked this question several times.. some responses I get are

"I don't have time to write an essay."

or

"the information is out there.. look it up for yourself."..

Honestly I would say expect no one to pop in here or to expect some snide response.

Good post :hippy:

8182KSKUSH

09-04-2008, 06:56 PM

I've asked this question several times.. some responses I get are

"I don't have time to write an essay."

or

"the information is out there.. look it up for yourself."..

Honestly I would say expect no one to pop in here or to expect some snide response.

Good post :hippy:
Yeah I kind of figured this wouldn't get much traction, but it is fun to give the religiously devout Obamites a place to post "specific" qualifications for his experience and "specific" accomplishments, and then have the thread just sit. That in itself is very telling, and says more than words ever could!:D

Psycho4Bud

09-04-2008, 07:13 PM

Yeah, I kind of figured that the Obamites wouldn't want to touch this with a ten foot pole. I am still waiting for someone to come on here and make the argument that she does not have enough experience, accomplishments to be selected as VP, oh wait this just in, the new liberal talking point has now shifted slightly, now it's that she was not properly "vetted". Oh, ok.:thumbsup:

What did ya expect. Not only does McCain have more experience AND character but now his choice for V.P. has proven the same. Palin is down to earth and out of ALL the candidates seems to be more like the average U.S. citizen than the rest.

And what does Obama have? That same ol' pretty speech from "02" as described by Clinton. Oh yeah, styrofoam Roman pillars too; how enviromentally friendly is styrofoam?

Have a good one!:s4:

8182KSKUSH

09-04-2008, 07:15 PM

The media was orgasming over the fact that Obama had 37 million Americans watching his speech,
News Agencies are reporting the numbers from last night, Palin's speech.
37 million viewers in America were watching. I suspect somehow the same media that was drooling over Obama for 8,9,10 months now in wait for his speech, building it up, and then lavishing praise over it and the fact that it had such a large amount of viewers, will somehow dismiss, avoid, or simply not give any acknowledgement to how many were watching my wife, er I mean Sarah Palin last night!
So she has had 5 or 6 days in the spotlight and managed to draw the exact same number of viewer, whoa!:jointsmile:

Rusty Trichome

09-04-2008, 07:21 PM

8182KSKUSH: please say hi to your 'wife' for me, lol. :thumbsup:

I really love how the huffingtonpost.idiot is saying that even though she is the Commander and Chief of the Alaska National Guard, she doesn't command the troops outside of the Alaskan borders. Gee...no shit?

"Maj. Gen. Craig Campbell, adjutant general of the Alaska National Guard, considers Palin "extremely responsive and smart" and says she is in charge when it comes to in-state services, such as emergencies and natural disasters where the National Guard is the first responder.

But, in an interview with The Associated Press on Sunday, he said he and Palin play no role in national defense activities, even when they involve the Alaska National Guard. The entire operation is under federal control, and the governor is not briefed on situations."

Hmmm...Commanding the troops during a natural disaster or in-state emergencies. It does seem like this experience may just come in handy sometime. (hurricanes, tornados, earthquakes, anarchist feeble attempts to disrupt...)
And Barrak Hussein Obama has how much experience in this matter...? How about OBiden? The answer was chanted loudly and proudly on the convention floor. "Zero, Zero, Zero..."

Breukelen advocaat

09-04-2008, 07:21 PM

Palin is down to earth and out of ALL the candidates seems to be more like the average U.S. citizen than the rest.

Have a good one!:s4:

"Palin........seems to be more like the average citizen." The average citizen is DUMB!

Rusty Trichome

09-04-2008, 07:44 PM

"Palin........seems to be more like the average citizen." The average citizen is DUMB!
Spoken like a true, average (left-wing) citizen, lol.

Breukelen advocaat

09-04-2008, 08:14 PM

Spoken like a true, average (left-wing) citizen, lol.

That may be true, but I'm not left-wing.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qEW12XLUM7A&feature=user

andruejaysin

09-05-2008, 04:49 AM

What difference does her qualifications or lack there of make? The oil industry gets to select the republican VP, and they chose her.

8182KSKUSH

09-05-2008, 04:54 AM

What difference does her qualifications or lack there of make? The oil industry gets to select the republican VP, and they chose her.

Really? How sure are you about that? Sure enough to post any credible info to support that besides your own opinion?
From what I understand, she isn't exactly a "good buddy" to big oil at all. In fact, I have heard the complete opposite. So please, for the benifit of everyone, go into detail and explain exaclty how, "Big Evil Oil" has somehow picked her and why they would?
I won't hold my breath.:wtf:

8182KSKUSH

09-05-2008, 04:55 AM

What difference does her qualifications or lack there of make? The oil industry gets to select the republican VP, and they chose her.

Maybe you missed number 12 on the original post. Here it is again, just for you.
12.
And despite fierce opposition from oil company lobbyists, who kind of liked things the way they were, we broke their monopoly on power and resources.
As governor, I insisted on competition and basic fairness to end their control of our state and return it to the people.

andruejaysin

09-05-2008, 05:11 AM

K she can lie in a speach, i guess that is a qualification.

8182KSKUSH

09-05-2008, 05:32 AM

K she can lie in a speach, i guess that is a qualification.

So.............
you are just going to rebut that with, "she's a liar". Ok.
The least you could do is site a source such as Aljazeera for example.

Here's a story from, get ready for this, CNN, you know the hard right wing news agency. LMFAO
Yeah apparently they are liars too!

Palin: No foe of oil - no patsy either

John McCain's running mate supports drilling but she has also tangled with Big Oil.

By Telis Demos ([email protected]), writer-reporter
Last Updated: September 1, 2008: 1:46 PM EDT

(Fortune) -- Within hours of Senator John McCain picking Alaska Governor Sarah Palin as his running mate, the talking heads of CNBC had coined a new term: "Palinomics." In a nutshell, the doctrine stands for expanding the search for domestic oil and gas as a solution to the energy crisis.
But while Palin might be a proponent of more drilling in Alaska, she's hardly a patsy of the oil industry. One theme at the Democratic convention was Republicans' cozy relationship with Big Oil. As Al Gore put it Thursday night, the industry has been "drilling [the GOP] for everything it's worth." But whatever you think of such a statement, it would be hard to say that about Sarah Palin.
Palin reached the Alaska statehouse in 2006 after trouncing incumbent governor Frank Murkowski, patriarch of one of Alaska's powerful political families, in the Republican primary. The former high-school basketball star, beauty queen, commercial fisherman, and mayor of Wasilla (population 8,471) ran on one big issue: Exploiting her state's billions of dollars worth of natural gas on Alaska's terms, not on the oil companies' terms.
For years, Alaskans have dreamed of the revenue bounty promised by the state's natural gas resources. But until recently, prices were too low to make shipping natural gas to the lower 48 states profitable. Murkowski had negotiated a deal with the Big Three oil companies of Alaska - BP (BP (http://money.cnn.com/quote/quote.html?symb=BP&source=story_quote_link)), ExxonMobil (XOM (http://money.cnn.com/quote/quote.html?symb=XOM&source=story_quote_link), Fortune 500 (http://money.cnn.com/magazines/fortune/fortune500/2008/snapshots/387.html?source=story_f500_link)), and ConocoPhillips (COP (http://money.cnn.com/quote/quote.html?symb=COP&source=story_quote_link), Fortune 500 (http://money.cnn.com/magazines/fortune/fortune500/2008/snapshots/327.html?source=story_f500_link)), which hold long-term North Slope leases - to finance and build a pipeline to get the 235 trillion cubic feet of natural gas estimated to be buried under the North Slope to market. The deal guaranteed a tax cut for the oil companies, and promised that Alaska wouldn't change those rates for decades.
But when Murkowski brought the proposal to the Alaska statehouse, it was rejected as a sweetheart deal for the oil companies. Several of the governor's negotiators were later indicted, accused of making back-room deals with the industry. Voters subsequently booted Murkowski from office. You don't mess with revenues from oil and gas in Alaska, because it goes into Alaska's Permanent Fund, which sends a check to each resident every year.
Once in office, Palin took an aggressive stance toward the oil companies. Her nickname from high-school basketball, "Sarah Barracuda," was resurrected in the press. Early in her term, she shocked oil lobbyists when she was so bold as to not show up when Exxon CEO Rex Tillerson came to Juneau to meet with her. Palin, after scrapping Murkowski's deal, would not give Big Oil the terms they wanted, yet insisted that the companies still had an obligation under their lease to deliver gas to whatever pipeline Alaska built. She invited the oil companies to place open bids to build a pipeline, but they refused. A bid by TransCanada, North America's largest pipeline builder, was approved by the legislature in August.
Palin also raised taxes on oil companies after Murkowski's previous tax regime produced falling revenues in 2007, despite skyrocketing oil prices. Alaska now has some of the highest resource taxes in the world. Alaska's oil tax revenues are expected to be about $10 billion in 2008, twice those of previous year. BP says about half its oil revenues now go to taxes, when royalty payments to the state are included. Earlier this week, Palin approved gas tax relief for Alaskans, and paid every resident $1,200 to help ease their fuel-price burden.

Here's a fine example of Obama "fighting" big oil.
I mean taking their money.

Obama's Oil Spill
March 31, 2008
Obama says he doesn't take money from oil companies. We say that's a little too slick.
Summary
In a new ad, Obama says, "I donâ??t take money from oil companies."

Technically, that's true, since a law that has been on the books for more than a century prohibits corporations from giving money directly to any federal candidate. But that doesnâ??t distinguish Obama from his rivals in the race.

We find the statement misleading:

Obama has accepted more than $213,000 from individuals who work for companies in the oil and gas industry and their spouses.

Two of Obama's bundlers are top executives at oil companies and are listed on his Web site as raising between $50,000 and $100,000 for the presidential hopeful.
Analysis
Sen. Barack Obama's ad began running late last week in Pennsylvania and Indiana. In it, Obama talks about the United States' reliance on foreign oil and the need for energy independence and alternative fuels.

Only Legal Contributions, Please

Obama's right on both counts when he says that "Exxonâ??s making $40 billion a year, and weâ??re paying $3.50 for gas." ExxonMobil's profits in 2007 hit $40.6 billion, the highest (http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/02/business/02oil.html) ever recorded by any company.
Obama '08 Ad: Nothing's Changedhttp://www.factcheck.org/demos/factcheck/imagefiles/Image/2008_3_31_obama_ad/obama_changed_front.jpg (http://www.factcheck.org/video/obamanothingschanged.wmv)

Obama: Since the gas lines of the â??70s, Democrats and Republicans have talked about energy independence, but nothingâ??s changed â?? except now Exxonâ??s making $40 billion a year, and weâ??re paying $3.50 for gas.
Iâ??m Barack Obama. I donâ??t take money from oil companies or Washington lobbyists, and I wonâ??t let them block change anymore. Theyâ??ll pay a penalty on windfall profits. Weâ??ll invest in alternative energy, create jobs and free ourselves from foreign oil.
I approve this message because itâ??s time that Washington worked for you. Not them.

The national average price for a gallon of gas in the week ending March 24, the most recent data available (http://tonto.eia.doe.gov/dnav/pet/pet_pri_gnd_dcus_nus_w.htm), was $3.26, but prices are higher than the average in some areas.

Our problem comes with this statement:

Obama: I donâ??t take money from oil companies or Washington lobbyists, and I wonâ??t let them block change anymore.
It's true that Obama doesn't take money directly from oil companies, but then, no presidential, House or Senate candidate does. They can't: Corporations have been prohibited from contributing directly to federal candidates since the Tillman Act became law in 1907 (http://www.fec.gov/info/appfour.htm).

Obama has, however, accepted more than $213,000 in contributions from individuals who work for, or whose spouses work for, companies in the oil and gas industry, according (http://www.opensecrets.org/pres08/select.asp?Ind=E01) to the Center for Responsive Politics. That's not as much as Sen. Hillary Clinton, who has received more than $306,000 in donations from people tied to the industry, but it's still a substantial amount.

Here's a chart we made, using the OpenSecrets.org database, of contributions to Obama from individuals employed by some of the largest oil companies in the U.S. Our numbers are conservative because the database doesn't include donations of less than $200 (federal law doesn't require the reporting of donations below that amount), and we haven't included sums donated by the spouses or other immediate family members of the employees. Additionally, we haven't included donations from people who work at smaller firms in the industry.
http://www.factcheck.org/demos/factcheck/imagefiles/Image/2008_3_31_obama_ad/obama_oil_contrib_final(1).jpg

When the Clinton campaign criticized (http://www.hillaryclinton.com/news/release/view/?id=6803) Obama's ad, calling it "false advertising," Obama's campaign quickly noted that he didn't take money from political action committees or lobbyists.

We'd say the Obama campaign is trying to create a distinction without very much of a practical difference. Political action committee funds are pooled contributions from a company's or an organization's individual employees or members; corporate lobbyists often have a big say as to where a PAC's donations go. But a PAC can give no more than (http://www.opensecrets.org/basics/law/index.asp) $5,000 per candidate, per election. We're not sure how a $5,000 contribution from, say, Chevron's PAC would have more influence on a candidate than, for example, the $9,500 Obama has received from Chevron employees giving money individually.

In addition, two oil industry executives are bundling money for Obama â?? drumming up contributions from individuals and turning them over to the campaign. George Kaiser, the chairman of Oklahoma-based Kaiser-Francis Oil Co., ranks 68th on the Forbes list (http://www.forbes.com/lists/2008/10/billionaires08_George-Kaiser_OXNB.html) of world billionaires. He's listed on Obama's Web site (http://answercenter.barackobama.com/cgi-bin/barackobama.cfg/php/enduser/std_adp.php?p_faqid=130&p_created=1176309944&p_sid=qu6dkS_i&p_accessibility=0&p_redirect=&p_lva=&p_sp=cF9zcmNoPTEmcF9zb3J0X2J5PSZwX2dyaWRzb3J0PSZwX 3Jvd19jbnQ9MiwyJnBfcHJvZHM9JnBfY2F0cz0wJnBfcHY9JnB fY3Y9JnBfcGFnZT0xJnBfc2VhcmNoX3RleHQ9YnVuZGxlcg**&p_li=&p_topview=1) as raising between $50,000 and $100,000 for the candidate. Robert Cavnar is president and CEO of Milagro Exploration LLC (http://www.milagroexploration.com/team/), an oil exploration and production company. He's named as a bundler in the same category as Kaiser.

We're not making any judgments about whether Obama is influenced by campaign contributions. In fact, we'd note that he singles out ExxonMobil in this ad, even though he's received more than $30,850 from individuals who work for the company. But we do think that in theory, contributions that come in volume from oil industry executives, or are bundled by them, can be every bit as influential as PAC contributions, if not more so.

Lobbyist Loopholes?

We've noted before that Obama's policy of not taking money from lobbyists is a bit of hair-splitting (http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/democratic_candidates_debate.html). It's true that he doesn't accept contributions from individuals who are registered to lobby the federal government. But he does take money from their spouses and from other individuals at firms where lobbyists work. And some of his bigger fundraisers were registered lobbyists until they signed on with the Obama campaign.

Even the campaign has acknowledged that this policy is flawed. "It isnâ??t a perfect solution to the problem and it isnâ??t even a perfect symbol," Obama spokesman Bill Burton has said.

â?? by Viveca Novak, with Justin Bank

Sources
Kornblut, Anne E., and Perry Bacon Jr. "Clinton Resists Calls to Drop Out." The Washington Post, 29 March 2008.

Mouawad, Jad. "Exxon Sets Record Profit Last Year (http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/02/business/02oil.html)." The New York Times, 2 Feb. 2008.

"Open Secrets" Database. Center for Responsive Politics, Accessed 31 March 2008.

Hillary for President. â??False Advertising: New Obama Ad Falsely Claims He Does Not Accept Money from Oil Companies (http://www.hillaryclinton.com/news/release/view/?id=6803).â? 28 March 2008.

Energy Information Administration, "Weekly Retail Gasoline and Diesel Prices (http://tonto.eia.doe.gov/dnav/pet/pet_pri_gnd_dcus_nus_w.htm)," accessed 31 March 2008.

And here is the Aljazeera article you are afraid to cite.

Palin's connection to 'big oil' By Rob Winder in St Paul, Minnesota
http://english.aljazeera.net/mritems/Images//2008/9/3/200893225922893965_8.jpgPalin says the US should drill its way out of dependence on foreign oil [GALLO/GETTY]
Sarah Palin, the governor of Alaska who has shot to prominence as John McCain's choice as running-mate, is best known as a passionate believer in new oil and gas exploration, including in Alaska's National Widelife Reserve - something McCain himself rejects.
But campaigners say she has a mixed record on her dealings with the oil corporations to which the Republican party has so many historic ties.
"There is no question that Palin's appointment as the Republican vice-presidential candidate cements the fact that John McCain is the candidate of big oil," Dan Weiss, a senior fellow at the Centre for American Progress, a Washington-based think-tank, told Al Jazeera.
"She supports the agenda of big oil - of more drilling - and she opposes investments in clean and renewable energy," he said.
Palin has presented herself as a challenger to corporate interests in Alaska, although that is because she believes the major energy companies have not acted swiftly enough in carrying out drilling and pipeline projects in the state.
Ending dependence
http://english.aljazeera.net/mritems/Images//2008/8/29/2008829175534532797_3.jpgMcCain and Palin have considerable
ties to big oil firms [EPA]The Alaskan governor also sees more drilling of US oil reserves as a way of ending US dependence on oil imports from the Middle East and elsewhere.
"I beg to disagree with any candidate who would say we can't drill our way out of our problem," she told Investor's Business Daily magazine earlier this year.
In 2006, she acted to renegotiate a deal with Exxon, BP and Conoco Phillips to build a pipeline carrying natural gas from Alaska's North Slope region across Canada to the US.
Palin also pushed for legislation to provide $500m in state funds to the companies to act on the project and eventually agreed to give the contract to TransCanada, a Canadian firm.
She also introduced a new tax on oil companies operating in Alaska and went as far as saying she supported Barack Obama, the Democratic candidate, when he proposed a windfall tax as part of his energy policy earlier this year.
However, her husband, Todd Palin used to work for the British Petroleum oil corporation in Alaska's North Slope region and she has collected almost $13,000 from lobbyists connected to the oil industry, reports say.
And Matt Gonzalez, environmentalist Ralph Nader's running-mate for his presidential campaign in 2008, says Palin has characterised the windfall tax in different ways depending on the audience and that she has not taken on oil corporations in the way she has claimed.
"We know that the oil companies have been making profits that have never been seen before, and the taxes that Palin has introduced are trivial in comparison," he told Al Jazeera.
Environmental concerns
http://english.aljazeera.net/mritems/Images//2008/1/4/1_236942_1_3.jpgPalin has opposed rulings on designating
polar bears as endangered [EPA]Environmentalists have expressed concern about Palin's views on the causes of climate change.
"A changing environment will affect Alaska more than any other state, because of our location. I'm not one, though, who would attribute it to being man-made," she said in an interview in August this year.
Palin, a keen hunter, has also threatened to sue the US government over its ruling on having the polar bear designated as an endangered species and opposed protection for salmon threatened by pollution from the mining industry.
The Palin connection has worried campaigners already concerned about McCain's ties to large oil firms that have led to him being dubbed "Exxon John" by Democrats.
McCain has received more than $1.5m from oil and gas interests for his presidential campaign, nearly four times more than the amount Obama has taken, according to figures up to July from the Centre for Responsive Politics.
Lobbying power
At this year's Republican National Convention, the power of the oil lobbying firms was on display.
In focushttp://english.aljazeera.net/mritems/images/2007/12/31/1_236712_1_9.jpg (http://english.aljazeera.net/focus/uselections2008/default.html)
In-depth coverage of the US election (http://english.aljazeera.net/focus/uselections2008/default.html)Haly Barbour, the governor of the state of Mississippi, hosted a lavish party for executives from the American Petroleum Institute to meet Republicans on Tuesday, an event targeted by protesters and activists.
Randa Fahmyhudome, a former Bush administration energy official, said Palin was right to call for drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge.
"In America, we are world's number one consumer of petroleum in the world and no-one knows better than Alaskans themselves what is good for environment. We ought to look to Alaskans and Governor Palin on this issue," she said.
"New technology will help us protect the environment while we develop these resources," she added.

Source:Al Jazeera

How telling that a major propoganda outlet for islamic facists is doing the exact same thing that the liberal media elites are doing. (Trying to trash the biggest threat to liberal idealogs that they are supporting.) Country first huh? Which country?

I wonder what all the bed wetters are going to do after they loose yet another election?:D Calling for a recount won't make much sense since they will loose by a 60%-40% margin. But that won't stop people like andruejaysin from throwing out ridiculous acutsations, and conspiracy threories and passing them off as fact.

PS
I am still waiting for a list of Obama's accomplishments and experience.
LOL
C'mon, it's not like it would take more than 1 minute to compile!:D

8182KSKUSH

09-05-2008, 05:36 AM

K she can lie in a speach, i guess that is a qualification.

You forgot to mention she is a bad mother too, she secretly is passing off her youngest child as her own when it is really her 17 year old daughters, you also forgot to make mention of the "Illegal Iraq War" and how the US actually brought down the towers on 9/11, and shot a missle into the Pentagon, and is destroying the planet and leading us all to the end of times. Oh yeah and that Bush is a Nazi, and let's see what else, (just trying to save you the trouble of typing this) um.....oh yeah, Bush eats babies too. There that should cover it.
Thanks for the laugh!

Ripcord

09-05-2008, 05:45 AM

Heres a real plus. She's against woman's rights. :D

DaBudhaStank

09-05-2008, 06:19 AM

I just giggle at the fact that she didn't write her speech. That's sweet. Actually shit, I can't think of any politicians that do....

8182KSKUSH

09-05-2008, 07:27 AM

:thumbsup:Still, no answer to my question. You would think with all the devout Obamites here that are so well educated, that they could put something together, if it existed. But instead, we get this:

What difference does her qualifications or lack there of make? The oil industry gets to select the republican VP, and they chose her.

I believe I have addressed your little gems of knowledge! No list of Obama accomplishments from you either huh? Perfect!:thumbsup:

K she can lie in a speach, i guess that is a qualification.

Keep checking back with Aljazeera, maybe you can get some more insight from that very credible and reliable source! They are big Obama supporters, maybe they could tell you what he has done.

Heres a real plus. She's against woman's rights. :D

Yeah ya think so, I heard Obama is in the KKK too. So were you going to list Obama's experience/accomplishments, or just make baseless, empty, boring, remarks because you have no other way to reply to this post? I guess you are fulfilling your obligation as a true Obamite!:thumbsup:

I just giggle at the fact that she didn't write her speech. That's sweet. Actually shit, I can't think of any politicians that do....

No shit, do you giggle every time you hear ANY politician speak. Was there even a point to your post?:wtf:
I don't suppose you could provide any sort of list of accomplishments/experience for Nobama.:wtf:

Wow, guess there is a reason she is the most popular sitting govenor in the U.S. today. This is just the short list, and by the way, she is just the VP on the ticket, IMHO, her experience and accomplishments make Obama's pale in comparisson, and make it laughable that he is even running for president. I invite anyone to post a list of Obama's accomplishments and experience that qualify him for even a VP position, let alone the presidency. LMFAO ALL DAY LONG!!!:D

Well so far so good. 4 perfect examples of mindless rants, no facts, and still, no list of accomplishments/experience from Senaturd Nobama, not that I am surprised. Not that there would actually be a "list".
Very typical of most avid Obamites here, always from a position of weakness, unable to make any relevant posts pertaining to the subject. Unable to respond to a single question. Of course we all know why, when you put the 2 lists side by side, it's obvious that not only is she more than qualified for her position, she is MORE QUALIFIED than Obama is, AND SHE ISN'T RUNNING ON THE TOP OF THE TICKET FOLKS HE IS!!!!:D:D:D

8182KSKUSH

09-05-2008, 08:58 AM

"Palin........seems to be more like the average citizen." The average citizen is DUMB!

You could definately make that argument, to an extent.

Spoken like a true, average (left-wing) citizen, lol.

Not so fast Rusty! I know that Breukelen is anything but left wing.
There has to be more to this.

That may be true, but I'm not left-wing.

qEW12XLUM7A

I don't understand Breukelen? You know this is not Sarah Palin right? Obviously you don't agree with where she stands on issues, or something? What's up? You can talk to me about. I sincerely do want to hear you out. Is it her fundamental religious beliefs? I understand that no one can agree with a politician on 100% of their views, so what's going on? Please come back and elaborate! Just be nice, that's my wife you are talking about, I LOVE THAT WOMAN!;):D:jointsmile:

Reefer Rogue

09-05-2008, 09:49 AM

8182KSKUSH

09-05-2008, 10:07 AM

The experience argument is a moot point now. I'll let my friend Jon explain.

You Tube - The Daily Show 9/3/08 - Jon Stewart Puts Newt Gingrich on the Hot Seat (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NyPKn2BtGUQ)

Give up now MacramÃ© and Appalling :stoned:

I guess?
It seems really funny that the democrats were so stupid the first 5 days she was out in crying out loud how "she has no experience etc...." and now they realize, "Oh, fuck me!! We better leave that alone, she has more experience than Obama! Fuck!!!!"
And now it's come down to just flat out trying to smear her, as is the case whenever the liberal left cannot compete in the arena of ideas, which is often.:D
As for the video, I love Newt, and John. They are both sharp as tacks, and both are very interesting to listen to. (Just happens to be one is right all the time and funny, and the other is a clown and good for a laugh, I think he's the only clown I know named John.)
So I guess the point is we are done trying to debate Palin's experience/accomplishment/record, since it makes Obama look like a rank amateur. (Still waiting for Obama supporters to provide a list of accomplishments/experience/record. STILL!)
I think that's funnier than the video. Now what, is it going to be "she wasn't properly vetted".
Anyone got a fork?
I think the democrats are done, probably for at least 8 more years, maybe 16.

8182KSKUSH

09-05-2008, 10:09 AM

The experiance argument is a moot point now. I'll let my friend Jon explain.

YouTube - The Daily Show 9/3/08 - Jon Stewart Puts Newt Gingrich on the Hot Seat (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NyPKn2BtGUQ)

Give up now Mcsame and ApPalin :stoned:

One more thing to add: O'Reily is an asshole

YouTube - Jon Stewart on The O'Reilly Factor (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H5pK7sK0i4A)

Um...
Maybe you should start a whole new thread about how you want to make out with John Stewart?
This one is supposed to be about comparing and contrasting Palin's experience/accomplishments/record with Obama's. Now if only Obama had any to compare to hers.:D

Breukelen advocaat

09-05-2008, 01:50 PM

I don't understand Breukelen? You know this is not Sarah Palin right? Obviously you don't agree with where she stands on issues, or something? What's up? You can talk to me about. I sincerely do want to hear you out. Is it her fundamental religious beliefs? I understand that no one can agree with a politician on 100% of their views, so what's going on? Please come back and elaborate! Just be nice, that's my wife you are talking about, I LOVE THAT WOMAN!;):D:jointsmile:
I was almost ready to vote for McCain, until he picked Palin. My thoughts, when this occurred, are mirrored in the excellent articles by Sam Harris, which are in the following thread: http://boards.cannabis.com/politics/161676-palin-average-isn-t-good-enough.html (http://boards.cannabis.com/politics/161676-palin-average-isn-t-good-enough.html)

Support Palin? I wouldn't even want to talk to her!

Nietzsche said that if you have not been hurt by religion, then you probably wouldn't understand the objections and disgust with it in the context of experience by those who have been . I think that he would say the same thing if were he alive today. Palin epitomizes the sheep mentality and dumbing down accomplished by superstitious, primitive thinking, suppression of intelligence and rational thinking that has been instilled in the hordes of believers - guaranteed to destroy everthing that is good.

It would be a huge understatement to say that the Founding Fathers would not not pleased with this state of affairs.

daihashi

09-05-2008, 02:03 PM

Nietzsche said that if you have not been hurt by religion, then you probably wouldn't understand the objections and disgust with it in the context of experience by those who have been . I think that he would say the same thing if were he alive today. Palin epitomizes the sheep mentality and dumbing down accomplished by superstitious, primitive thinking, suppression of intelligence and rational thinking that has been instilled in their hordes of believers - guaranteed to destroy everthing that is good.

It would be a huge understatement to say that the Founding Fathers would not not pleased with this state of affairs.

Why would they not be pleased? They said freedom of religion, not freedom from religion. Also I understand what you're saying but aside from her stance on Abortion and Creationism can you tell me what legislation she's passed that you can directly attribute to her influence from God and how was that legislation bad for the citizens of Alaska.

She's allowed to be religious and she's allowed to say she talks to god, as a matter of fact many people do. While it sounds a bit crazy to me I do not judge these people because it is their religious belief, which is protected under freedom from religion.

Seperation of Church and state simply means Seperation of Church and State. Meaning do not let the Catholic Church control the government etc etc. aka don't become a theological government.

Freedom of religion, not freedom from religion.

Breukelen advocaat

09-05-2008, 02:17 PM

Why would they not be pleased? They said freedom of religion, not freedom from religion. Also I understand what you're saying but aside from her stance on Abortion and Creationism can you tell me what legislation she's passed that you can directly attribute to her influence from God and how was that legislation bad for the citizens of Alaska.

She's allowed to be religious and she's allowed to say she talks to god, as a matter of fact many people do. While it sounds a bit crazy to me I do not judge these people because it is their religious belief, which is protected under freedom from religion.

Seperation of Church and state simply means Seperation of Church and State. Meaning do not let the Catholic Church control the government etc etc. aka don't become a theological government.

Freedom of religion, not freedom from religion.
Listen, when you see her in her church, which is like an insane cult, and you don't get nauseous, then there's nothing I can say to persuade you.

I could argue that the Founding Fathers were Deists, a very progressive philosophy for their time, and that Palin's crew would not be with them, but that's not going to convince anybody that does not know this already.

There wouldn't even have been a United States of America if the Founders had thought like her - and there might not be any in the future if the power is given to those of her ilk.

I believe in freedom from religion, as did Washington, Jefferson, and their colleagues. Palin's thinking is exactly the opposite. I'd suggest that you read the Sam Harris articles, if you havn't already. He's also written books and a number of other excellent articles about the danger of religion in politics and everyday life.

daihashi

09-05-2008, 02:24 PM

Listen, when you see her in her church, which is like an insane cult, and you don't get nauseous, then there's nothing I can say to persuade you.

uhh, did you see her in church? I think we've only seen Obama's Trinity church :P.

I could argue that the Founding Fathers were Deists, a very progressive philosophy for their time, and that Palin's crew would not be with them, but that's not going to convince anybody that does not know this already.

Whatever their belief, they did not force it onto others and believed people had the RIGHT to form their own beliefs seperate from the government. This is some of the freedom they fought for. But I doubt that will convince you since it should be apparent that our nation was formed under people's individual freedoms.

There wouldn't even have been a United States of America if the Founders had thought like her - and there might not be any in the future if the power is given to those of her ilk.

I believe in freedom from religion, as did Washington, Jefferson, and their colleagues.

And the founding fathers believed in Freedom of Religion and Seperation of Church and state which is completely different from Freedom FROM religion. I doubt they would say that Sarah Palin does not have a right to run for office due to her religious beliefs.

Show my credible evidence otherwise and I will retract my statement.

daihashi

09-05-2008, 02:26 PM

You did not address my question btw Breukelen

Here it is for you again if you missed it:

Also I understand what you're saying but aside from her stance on Abortion and Creationism can you tell me what legislation she's passed that you can directly attribute to her influence from God and how was that legislation bad for the citizens of Alaska.

Breukelen advocaat

09-05-2008, 02:31 PM

You did not address my question btw Breukelen

Here it is for you again if you missed it:
Quote:
Also I understand what you're saying but aside from her stance on Abortion and Creationism can you tell me what legislation she's passed that you can directly attribute to her influence from God and how was that legislation bad for the citizens of Alaska.

I'm not against everthing she did in her little world - it's her mentality. She is not sane.

I remember people objecting to JFK's Catholicism. He did everything he could to convince the voters that he did not intend to do the bidding of his religion. Palin is exactly the opposite - she believes that she's acting for God, Christianity must prevail, and that she is "chosen" by a supernatural being. This is not someone who should be the leader of the most powerful nation on earth.

daihashi

09-05-2008, 02:33 PM

I'm not against everthing she did in her little world - it's her mentality. She is not sane.

by that account are you against anyone who says they talk to god? Are they insane? I'm sure you know but many people claim to form a personal relationship with God/Jesus. Personally this sounds weird to me but I don't think they are crazy. Most of what I hear from highly religious people sounds nuts to me, but I don't judge their sanity as a person outside of their religion.

daihashi

09-05-2008, 02:37 PM

I remember people objecting to JFK's Catholicism. He did everything he could to convince the voters that he did not intend to do the bidding of his religion. Palin is exactly the opposite - she believes that she's acting for God, Christianity must prevail, and that she is "chosen" by a god.

So JFK downplayed the role of religion in his life (typical) and that's ok? But for someone to say they believe in something is wrong?

I don't really think she believes she was chosen by god. Worst case scenario it was just pandering to the evangelical crowd that neither McCain or Obama can seem get a grasp on.

I look at the state of condition of Alaska and the City she was Mayor of when I'm trying to determine what types of things she will want to do as VP, I feel those speak more words than her rant about God.

Breukelen advocaat

09-05-2008, 02:37 PM

by that account are you against anyone who says they talk to god? Are they insane? I'm sure you know but many people claim to form a personal relationship with God/Jesus. Personally this sounds weird to me but I don't think they are crazy. Most of what I hear from highly religious people sounds nuts to me, but I don't judge their sanity as a person outside of their religion.
I don't care if the local fish monger, or even my doctor, has insane religious beliefs. I just do not think that such people are fit to hold the office of the president of these United States. Palin is mentally ill, and if you don't see it then there's not much I can say.

Obama was bad enough, but as Sam Harris poined out he's probably pandering to his constituency and doen't believe it.

P.S. Prior to the Palin announcement, I thoroughly ripped Obama for his religious beliefs, but I do not think he's 10 percent as bad - even if he does believe what he purports to (which I doubt).

Reefer Rogue

09-05-2008, 02:40 PM

Quotes from your boy Gringam

'He's (Obama) been on the presidential campaign 7 years longer then she's been governer.'

'You can't find a single executive decision that either Obama or Biden has made in their entire career'

Jon 'or then mccain by that definiton'

Gingrich 'That's exactly right.'

Hmm..

Palin would veto abortions for women even in the event of being raped.

How fair of her..

'We're at the end of a cycle where people were fed up with the congressional republicans, basically fired them in 2006, the presidents poll numbers have been low, if this campaign is about politics as usual then the fact is, obama and biden are going to win.'

I agree Gingich, though i wish i'd've seen the moose hunt.

I don't wanna make out with Jon Stuart, but i'll enjoy his comedy while poking fun of hypocrits.

She was a mayor of a city in Alaska with 9 thousand people in it, big whoop, great experiance :rolleyes: she has flawed policies and if this Mcsame ticket wins i'll be shocked and appauled. Have a good one :jointsmile:

daihashi

09-05-2008, 02:41 PM

I don't care if the local fish monger, or even my doctor, has insane religious beliefs. I just do not think that such people are fit to hold the office of the president of these United States. Palin is mentally ill, and if you don't see it then there's not much I can say.

Unless you performed a pyschiatric evaluation on her yourself and you're licensed to do so then I really don't feel you're in a position to judge. You obviously are biased against religion for some reason and that's your choice, but I feel you're letting your Bias blind you.

for the record I'm not exactly thrilled about Either the McCain camp or the Obama Camp; I typically don't vote in presidential elections (mostly because votes only truely make a difference at the state/local level.. presidents are pretty much elected through the electoral college. The vote of the people makes up a very small percentage of what actually determines who wins the office) but this time around I'll be voting McCain. I'm not excited about it but we know only one of these two men are going to win and I'd rather it be McCain/Palin instead of Obama/Biden <cringe>

Breukelen advocaat

09-05-2008, 02:48 PM

Unless you performed a pyschiatric evaluation on her yourself and you're licensed to do so then I really don't feel you're in a position to judge. You obviously are biased against religion for some reason and that's your choice, but I feel you're letting your Bias blind you.

for the record I'm not exactly thrilled about Either the McCain camp or the Obama Camp; I typically don't vote in presidential elections (mostly because votes only truely make a difference at the state/local level.. presidents are pretty much elected through the electoral college. The vote of the people makes up a very small percentage of what actually determines who wins the office) but this time around I'll be voting McCain. I'm not excited about it but we know only one of these two men are going to win and I'd rather it be McCain/Palin instead of Obama/Biden <cringe>
Fuck the psychiatrists - they're afraid to offend the religious establishments. I've had enough experience with religion that common sense (not very common unfortunatly) which can tell me that the elevator doesn't reach the top floor in this type of person. I do not see myself as "biased" since virtually everybody I've voted for in the past 4 decades has professed some sort of religous belief - but this one is way beneath what I consider minimally acceptable or deserving of a vote for vice president.

Relying on prejudiced professions for an opinion is not something that I intend to do. I have an intellect, and experience, and people that still do better get ready for a fight for our rights - and the future of the world.

I was ready to vote McCain - and he's shown his true colors by picking a person that is unstable and dangerous to run with him.

daihashi

09-05-2008, 03:31 PM

Fuck the psychiatrists - they're afraid to offend the religious establishments. I've had enough experience with religion that common sense (not very common unfortunatly) which can tell me that the elevator doesn't reach the top floor in this type of person. I do not see myself as "biased" since virtually everybody I've voted for in the past 4 decades has professed some sort of religous belief - but this one is way beneath what I consider minimally acceptable or deserving of a vote for vice president.

Relying on prejudiced professions for an opinion is not something that I intend to do. I have an intellect, and experience, and people that still do better get ready for a fight for our rights - and the future of the world.

I was ready to vote McCain - and he's shown his true colors by picking a person that is unstable and dangerous to run with him.

You said she is insane... you are no better qualified to determine who is sane/insane than the person working the fryer at mcdonalds. That was my point.

dragonrider

09-05-2008, 03:47 PM

McDanger

09-05-2008, 03:54 PM

Fuck the psychiatrists - they're afraid to offend the religious establishments. I've had enough experience with religion that common sense (not very common unfortunatly) which can tell me that the elevator doesn't reach the top floor in this type of person. I do not see myself as "biased" since virtually everybody I've voted for in the past 4 decades has professed some sort of religous belief - but this one is way beneath what I consider minimally acceptable or deserving of a vote for vice president.

Relying on prejudiced professions for an opinion is not something that I intend to do. I have an intellect, and experience, and people that still do better get ready for a fight for our rights - and the future of the world.

I was ready to vote McCain - and he's shown his true colors by picking a person that is unstable and dangerous to run with him.

Then you really must think Al Gore is nuts since he started his own religion, based on assumptions. None of which have been proven. Same with evolution, none of it has been proven, so it is all based on faith. That is religion.
So you think everybody is insane that does not believe in your religion of atheism.

McDanger

09-05-2008, 03:57 PM

daihashi

09-05-2008, 04:01 PM

Certainly any person is free to have their own religious beliefs. But I agree with BA that a person who believes the Universe is only 6000 years old and denies evolution is a person who is blind to scientific fact and not fit to lead a country in this century. That is my opinion and it is not an attack on religion

Not all people who believe in creationism believe that the world is less than 10,000 years old.

There are different sects of creationism. Most combine science with their religious beliefs and accept the scientific age for the planet/universe.

Creationism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Creationism#Types_of_Christian_creationism)

Religious belief is fine as long as it doesn't get in the way of sound policy or good judgement. I do not trust the judgement of people who ascribe events to God's will. We live in a world of cause and effect, not supernatural intervention.

People look to god to give them strength to make decisions every day. If believing in something gives you the strength to make very difficult decisions then I see no fault in that.

The fact is that no one can disprove creationism and no one can prove evolution. I personally believe in evolution but I won't discredit a creationist because there is no evidence to say that it's not true.

Bottom line, FACT, We don't know. Respect others beliefs and leave it at that.

Palin supports teaching creationism in schools. She supports abstinence-only sex education. She would like abortion to be illegal even in cases of rape or incest. I think these are areas where her religious belief has led to bad policy.

Palin supports creationism to be taught in schools in addition to traditional science. She is not trying to replace anything at all. I feel that creationism would be fine as an elective course if you wanted to take it. Is this really so bad?

I don't agree with her position on abortion at all, but even if the congress became a conservative congress and Palin/McCain were VP I seriously doubt this would pass.

Bush had a conservative congress for most of his time in office. I believe Bush is also a Pro-Lifer... you didn't see any anti-abortion laws go into effect based on his religion. They don't want to lose their own power now.

I am not qualified to make a clinical diagnosis of insanity, so instead I like to use the non-medical term "wackadoo" to describe people who deny scientific fact.

wackadoo is perfectly acceptable from a non professional view point. You also don't know for certain that she denies scientific fact. For all you know she could be one of those progressive creationism who do believe in science but also believe in their religion.

:hippy:

thcbongman

09-05-2008, 04:21 PM

Provide some facts. She wants intelligent design taught in addition to the current evolution THEORY

When you put THEORY in big capitals, you confuse the definitions. In science a theory is a something you can test, something that has countless experiments been done on. You have hundreds years worth of acute observations. In this day, you have DNA. The theory of evolution is bound to be proven someday given the technological advances of today. In the mean-time, it's the most tested theory and has advanced beyond a hypothesis.

That's exactly what creationism is, a hypothesis. Exactly how can you test creationism? It's simply words. With the theory of evolution, you can take some of the hypothesises and test it for yourself. You are able to observe the various similar traits. Any person can. With creationism, it's centered around belief.

That's why religion and science should never mix.

daihashi

09-05-2008, 04:33 PM

When you put THEORY in big capitals, you confuse the definitions. In science a theory is a something you can test, something that has countless experiments been done on. You have hundreds years worth of acute observations. In this day, you have DNA. The theory of evolution is bound to be proven someday given the technological advances of today. In the mean-time, it's the most tested theory and has advanced beyond a hypothesis.

That's exactly what creationism is, a hypothesis. Exactly how can you test creationism? It's simply words. With the theory of evolution, you can take some of the hypothesises and test it for yourself. You are able to observe the various similar traits. Any person can. With creationism, it's centered around belief.

That's why religion and science should never mix.

Creationism is a relatively new field in the last 30 years. You're comparing apples to oranges. People laughed/mocked Darwin and thought he was a loon for his theory of Evolution by the mainstream. Younger generations were interested in his theory.

Creationism tries to ultimately address an question that science is still very far off from figuring out. How exactly did life begin on this planet.. why are we here and why is the universe here. These things cannot be tested or proven and we are very far away from having the slightest idea of how it really happened.

Big Bang Theory - can't be tested or proven
Wormholes - can't be tested or proven
Dark matter - can't be tested or proven
Cold Fusion - couldn't be proven for decades, seemed like a stupid thing from the Cold war. Now it's a reality, the problem is getting enough Helium 3 to take it a step further.

I mean there are countless things in science that people truely BELIEVE to exist. They have such strong faith that things are out there, they keep searching and searching without any hope of finding an actual answer yet we all accept it as Truth.

Why so skeptic of creationism. Is it really that difficult to believe that someone or something maybe initiated life on earth?

I don't deny the possibility, but I don't personally believe in it.

Psycho4Bud

09-05-2008, 04:38 PM

It would be a huge understatement to say that the Founding Fathers would not not pleased with this state of affairs.

Are you trying to say that the founding fathers weren't religiously influenced? I thought that during that period of time, an athiest was another name for witch.

Have a good one!:s4:

Smokeybears

09-05-2008, 04:43 PM

She's got 5 kids.
Thats a job.
Hah, well I think she means well, I really don't know anything about her except that she's a proponent of public education and she's very pro-life. Probably even more so now that her 17 year old unmarried daughter is pregnant (but thats neither here nor there).

dragonrider

09-05-2008, 04:54 PM

Then you really must think Al Gore is nuts since he started his own religion, based on assumptions. None of which have been proven. Same with evolution, none of it has been proven, so it is all based on faith. That is religion.
So you think everybody is insane that does not believe in your religion of atheism.

I'm not an atheist. Don't tell me what I believe. If you want to know what I believe, ask me and I will tell you, but do not go posting that I believe something when you really have no idea and are in fact wrong.

The THEORY of evolution is based on measurable FACTS that cannot be deinied. The system of science proposes ideas that are meant to be consistent with the FACTS that have been measured, and then proposes ways to test those ideas to see if they are consistent with other measured FACTS. Once the idea has been rigorously tested and found to be consistent with everything we observe, it is called a THEORY.

So a THEORY is an idea or explanation that has been shown to be true by every way we know to test it. However, a THEORY is never a FACT and it is generally not considered to be PROVEN. You don't PROVE theories, you test them.

The THEORY of evolution has been tested in thousands of ways for over 100 years and is so far consistent with observable FACT. It's pretty solid, but it continues to be tested, and is not itself a FACT.

I'm glad you brought up Global Warming, because this is one of the problems I think a creationist might have a little trouble dealing with. There is a lot of scientific evidence that burning fossil fuels will change the climate. I don't trust a person who doesn't even believe the world is 6000 years old to be able to deal with ancient fossil evidence that is part of the evidence for the theory.

I don't trust that such a person would not just dismiss that kind of evidence because they don't believe the world is even old enogh for that evidence to exist. And if they don't think the world changed in the past, then why would they believe it is changing now? And if it is changing now, I do not trust them not to just dismiss that change as part of God's plan.

thcbongman

09-05-2008, 04:56 PM

daihashi

09-05-2008, 05:00 PM

Sure, theory like big bang and theory of relativity cannot be tested in such a fashion. However there are schematic models with each, and observations based on other theories. None of those theories, creationism, intelligent design are reliant on such models. Unless it's brought to the next level and start to prove the hypothesis that this is the responsiblity of a creator. I don't discount it as an idea, although the little I know about creationism it doesn't really have any scientific basis. It could very well be proven true in time like many others.

I'm not an atheist by any means, so don't get this impression I don't believe in god. I believe in concepts like reincarnation and enlightenment. That doesn't mean it's fact, I simply believe in it. Nor does it imply it shouldn't be taught in schools, I simply think it shouldn't be intermingled with science until some of the hypothesis they state are started to be tested and proven true.

It's not that.. it's that by definition a Theory is something that is not proven as true. So regardless of your argument.. any scientific theory is still a theory and not fact.

You can have all the models in the world but it doesn't make you right unless you can prove it.

Science and creationism are in the same boat essentially no matter how you roll the dice. Science is just in the better position to win this fight, and probably by a landslide at that. :hippy:

daihashi

09-05-2008, 05:03 PM

I do not trust them not to just dismiss that change as part of God's plan.

You don't understand creationism. Not all answers in creationism/intelligent design refer to unknowns as "God's plan".

I'm agnostic btw, I don't believe in god but I don't deny the possibility of god or a higher being having influenced us.

TheMetal1

09-05-2008, 05:24 PM

dragonrider

09-05-2008, 05:33 PM

This is probably not the place to get into the evolution debate. But....

Creationism is a relatively new field in the last 30 years. You're comparing apples to oranges. People laughed/mocked Darwin and thought he was a loon for his theory of Evolution by the mainstream. Younger generations were interested in his theory.

Creationism tries to ultimately address an question that science is still very far off from figuring out. How exactly did life begin on this planet.. why are we here and why is the universe here. These things cannot be tested or proven and we are very far away from having the slightest idea of how it really happened.

I think maybe you are talking about "Intelligent Design." The term "Creationism" is generally used to describe the belief that the Bible creation story is literlally true in every detail --- universe is 6000 years old, Adam and Eve, all animals and plants created in exactly the form they have today.

"Intelligent Design" is the idea that life has changed over time, but that it is guided by an "Intelligent Designer" who is generally taken to be God. The argument for it is usually that life is too complex to have evolved through purely physical phenomena.

There are infinite varieties of beliefs all along this spectrum.

The reason these ideas are not considered theories for scientific purposes is that they do not propose any method of testing, which is required in order to be a hypothesis or a theory. In addition, pure creationism is actually shown to be inconsistent with many known facts, so it's never going to be a theory --- plain and simple.

Big Bang Theory - can't be tested or proven
The Big Bang theory is tested through astronimical observation that shows the universe is expanding. It is also tested through quantum physics experiments that attempt to recreate conditions similar to the earliest moments of time. It contimues to be tested and refined.

Wormholes - can't be tested or proven
Wormholes are a theory that grows out of purely theoretical physics --- mathematical extrapolation, like General Relativity and things like Black Holes. These kinds of theories are much harder to test, but like General Relativity and Black Holes, the theories do make predictions about what we should be able to observe if the theories are true. And eventually that is either born out or not. In the case of General Relativity and Black Holes, the astronomical predictions were later observed and they are considered well-founded theories now. I don't know what observations are predicted for Wormholes.

Dark matter - can't be tested or proven
The Dark Matter theory is tested through astronimical observation that shows large anmounts of gravity that cannot be accounted for by things we can observe. We know the gravitaional effect is there, but do not claim to know specifically what it is. This is another area pursued through both astronomy and quantum physcal experiments.

Cold Fusion - couldn't be proven for decades, seemed like a stupid thing from the Cold war. Now it's a reality, the problem is getting enough Helium 3 to take it a step further.
Cold Fusion is not a theory. It is a physical application. Actually cold fusion has never been demonstrated as far as I know.

I mean there are countless things in science that people truely BELIEVE to exist. They have such strong faith that things are out there, they keep searching and searching without any hope of finding an actual answer yet we all accept it as Truth.
The purpose of searching is that there IS hope of finding answeres.

Why so skeptic of creationism. Is it really that difficult to believe that someone or something maybe initiated life on earth?

I don't deny the possibility, but I don't personally believe in it.

Many scientists, including evolution scientists, believe in God. There is nothing wrong with that or the idea that Goid initiated creation. However, scientists belive there are physical mechanisms to everything that can be observed and explained. Beliefs that rely on supernatural forces as the actual MECHANISM are not scientifc, unless they can propose theories for the supernatural being or force, in which case it's no longer supernatural, and it's back to science and not faith anymore.

dragonrider

09-05-2008, 05:53 PM

You don't understand creationism. Not all answers in creationism/intelligent design refer to unknowns as "God's plan".

I'm agnostic btw, I don't believe in god but I don't deny the possibility of god or a higher being having influenced us.

Let me clarify.

I do not trust the judgement of the people who DO deny observable facts. For example, I do not trust the judgement of people who DO claim that the earth is actually 6000 years old, with the reason being that it says so in the Bible. There are methods for measuring the ages of things that show this to be false.

I do not trust the judgement of people who DO claim that all livings things were created in the exact form that they hold now, with the reason being that it says so in the Bible. There are fossils that show this to be false.

If someone wants to characterize themselves as a "creationist" but doesn't deny observable fact then I don't have a problem with their judgement. For example, if a person believes in intelligent design as the ultimate driver of evolution but accepts the actual facts that point to the age of the earth and that life has evolved over time, then I have no problem with that person's judgement at all. They are not necessarily a scientist, but they do not close their eyes to observable fact.

I would have a problem if they felt that thier personal belief should be taught as science, because their belief it is not rooted in the method of science.

daihashi

09-05-2008, 06:12 PM

\
I would have a problem if they felt that thier personal belief should be taught as science, because their belief it is not rooted in the method of science.

Even if that course was not a mandatory course but an elective course that students can OPT to take?

Also you keep seem to insinuate that Sarah Palin believes the world is only 6000 years old. Which is why I brought up you don't understand creationism. This seems to be one of your ultimate arguments against it; which in all honesty you don't know how extreme or reasonable she is when it comes to creationism and science.

dragonrider

09-05-2008, 06:29 PM

Even if that course was not a mandatory course but an elective course that students can OPT to take?

Well it's absolutely not a science course, regardless of whether it is elective or not. Perhaps is it could be taught in a course about the scientific method itself, as an example of a belief that IS NOT a scientific theory. I kind of doubt that would get very far.

Even if it were not taught as science, I would not be in favor of it being taught in a public school. Generally, I think it is better that public schools steer clear of religious curriculum.

Also you keep seem to insinuate that Sarah Palin believes the world is only 6000 years old. Which is why I brought up you don't understand creationism. This seems to be one of your ultimate arguments against it; which in all honesty you don't know how extreme or reasonable she is when it comes to creationism and science.

I had read it either in an earlier post or on another forum, so you are correct, I do not know from a credible source if she believes in an extreme form of creationism or not.

She did say in her 2006 campaign for Governor that she thought creationism should be taught as an alternative in schools, which I adamately disagree with. I do not think she actually pushed it as a policy once she was elected.

Rusty Trichome

09-05-2008, 07:24 PM

Not so fast Rusty! I know that Breukelen is anything but left wing.
There has to be more to this.
Was a poke at the vocabulary of the "average" (left wing) citizen. No slight to Breuk intended. :jointsmile:

Last I heard, Creationism was a religiously motivated political movement protected under the rights we all hold dear. Personally, I'd vote-in a Creationist, a Mormon, or a Bhudist...before voting in someone that has no "Higher Inspiration" than the polls, and the morals of the San Fransisco, Hollywood, or Chicago elite. But hey...that's just me. I'm guessing those in Alaska are aware of every nuance of her service and private life...and 80% of them harbor no ill will twords her. In fact they seem to like what she's done. Kinda hard to beat-up on that.

Reaching for straws...that seems all the democrats have left.

dragonrider

09-05-2008, 07:41 PM

I think Palin is probably going to have a big political career (just not VP!).

Mostly I don't think the VP picks add much to the ticket, but they can hurt. I don't think people change their vote to vote for a different presidential candidate based on the fact that they like the VP. I don't think Biden brings Obama very many votes, for example.

But VPs can hurt the ticket. I'm going to vote for Obama, but I think McCain is a decently respectable guy. Given a different Democratic candidate, I might have considered McCain, because he is a moderate and reformist and he himself is not an over-the-top social conservative. But I DO NOT like Sarah Palin's social conservative agenda. I would never consider voting for that whole ticket, especially given McCain's age and health. I don't think she will sway any on-the-fence voters for McCain, but she probably will help excite the unenthusistic social conservatives. And there is probably a good number of on-the-fence voters who will be repulsed by her.

Psycho4Bud

09-05-2008, 07:43 PM

I think Palin is probably going to have a big political career (just not VP!).

McCain in "08" with Palin taking over in "12". She has an 80% approval rating in Alaska for a reason.

Have a good one!:s4:

Delta9 UK

09-05-2008, 08:01 PM

Please - lets not have another Creationism/ID debate... :wtf:

Must .... resist... posting

dragonrider

09-05-2008, 08:11 PM

Please - lets not have another Creationism/ID debate... :wtf:

Must .... resist... posting

Ha ha! Be strong! I was weak and look what happened to me!

texas grass

09-05-2008, 08:26 PM

Creationist museum brings dinosaurs on board Noahâ??s Ark
The Winged Bull
Tom Baldwin in Washington

A vegetarian Tyrannosaurus rex frolicked alongside human beings only a few thousand years ago in the Garden of Eden until Eve decided to munch on that apple, according to the Creation Museum, which opens in Kentucky today.

The $27 million (Â£14 million) exhibition is funded by evangelical Christians, who apparently believe that by reclaiming dinosaurs and fossils for their literal biblical interpretation of natural history, teenagers are less likely to look at internet pornography or get pregnant out of wedlock.

This sprawling 50-acre (20hectare) site is the latest effort to counter the evolutionary science taught in state schools that Answers in Genesis, the religious group behind the museum, claims has chipped away at the nationâ??s moral fabric.

It uses much of the same technology seen in mainstream museums. There are realistic moving, roaring dinosaurs and a lifesized model of a ship being built by animatronic craftsmen. In this corner of northern Kentucky the dinosaurs get to go on the ship, which happens to be none other than Noahâ??s Ark.

Inevitably the museum, which hopes to receive 250,000 visitors a year, has attracted criticism from members of the scientific community, who plan to stage a â??rally for reasonâ? outside the entrance today. Two petitions are in circulation among university lecturers complaining about the inaccuracies of the exhibits and efforts by the â??Religious Right to inject creationist teachings into science educationâ?.

Although attempts to reintroduce an element of creationism â?? rebranded as â??intelligent designâ? â?? into science lessons have foundered, three of ten Republican presidential candidates said in a recent debate that they did not believe in evolution. Opinion polls show consistently that half of Americans believe that humans did not evolve but were created, along with all living creatures, by God 6,000 to 10,000 years ago.

The museum has a series of rooms depicting the darkening of a world that abandons a literal interpretation of the Bible. Two teenagers, apparently indoctrinated with evolutionary teaching, are shown at home. The girl is talking to Planned Parenthood and the boy is looking at pornography on a computer. These images culminate in a wrecking ball, labelled with the words â??millions of yearsâ?, smashing down a church.

Ken Ham, the Australian-born founder of Answers in Genesis, believes that the battle for minds should be fought among the very young because of childrenâ??s fascination with dinosaurs. These creatures have long since posed a â??test of faithâ? for creationists because of fossils suggesting that T.rex and suchlike walked the Earth â?? and then disappeared â?? millions of years before the Book of Genesis says that God spent six days making everything.

â??Dinosaurs are one of the icons of evolution, but we believe they lived at the same time as people,â? Mr Ham said. â??The Bible talks about dragons. We believe dragon legends had a basis in truth . . . We like to say, â??Youâ??ve captured them for evolution, and weâ??re going to take them back.â?? â? All those fossils, some of which are exhibited in the museum, were created not millions of years ago but by the biblical floods.

In one exhibit two palaeontologists â?? a light-skinned creationist and a dark-skinned evolutionist â?? are shown digging up a dinosaur skeleton and, of course, reach different interpretations. The message is that it is OK, even scientific, to defy evolution.

Eugenie Scott, director of the National Centre for Science Education, calls the museum â??the creationist Disneylandâ?. Lawrence Krauss, a theoretical physicist at Case Western Reserve University, accuses it of spreading â??documented liesâ?.

Mr Hams says: â??Why do they worry about my little museum? Theyâ??ve got museums all over the world.â?

Literal truth

â?? The basis of creationism is belief in the Bibleâ??s literal truth. Most creationists believe the Earth is only a few thousand years old

â?? They believe that life did not evolve gradually through natural processes but was formed supernaturally by God

â?? The only changes possible in plants and animals are negative ones of degradation or extinction

â?? Natural processes are seen not as self-sustaining but as maintained daily by God. Miracles are thus seen as God's choice to do something differently

Sources: creationministries.org ; clarifyingchristianity.com

8182KSKUSH

09-05-2008, 08:46 PM

I just want to say that I spent that last 30 minutes pouring my heart out... trying to explain my personal view on this topic. After all that time, and to be honest emotion, I accidentally clicked something and lost it all.

I'm late for going back to work now....

I just beat the fucking SHIT out of a notebook. I used to destroy things like doors and walls when I would get this mad. Luckily I've broken my knuckles, hands, and wrists so many times that I've downgraded to softer materials.

I don't think you all understand how :mad: I am right now. You know those posts when you know you said everything you wanted to say?

FAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAACK!!!!!!

hA HA HAha ha! That sucks! Yup I know exactly how that works!:D

Reaching for straws...that seems all the democrats have left.

Reaching for ANYTHING! Get your forks out folks! The Democrats are DONE!

McCain in "08" with Palin taking over in "12". She has an 80% approval rating in Alaska for a reason.

Have a good one!:s4:
Exactly! I don't see McCain running for a second term, so whom better to defeat Billary in 2012. You do realize that she is the new "Bush Bag" for liberals to beat on for the next 8 years though!:jointsmile:

Breuk, I understand what you are saying, I don't agree with everything you are saying. I have never ever been to any church service of any kind to speak of. I am not real religious as you could probably tell from the "sweet feathery baby jesus" remarks and so on. I still don't agree, but thanks for the explanation, good guess on the religion thing huh?:jointsmile:

As for everyone else.
300 VIEWS LATER, OVER 50 POSTS LATER.
NO LIST FOR OBAMA.:thumbsup:

TheMetal1

09-05-2008, 08:59 PM

People look to god to give them strength to make decisions every day. If believing in something gives you the strength to make very difficult decisions then I see no fault in that.

I just wanted to say a few things on the topic of religion in politics. It seems that there are many debates on if it matters or why it matters. If, historically, Christianity played a miniscule role in societal evolution... this wouldn't be a discussion. It would just be a personal belief that she held sacred... in private. However, this is not the case. While we all preach that humans are allowed freedom to choose or not choose to follow a religion.... we are truly selective as to which faiths we approve of. When a politician claims that "God," has told them something... from a truly objective viewpoint... it is similar to a schizophrenic person claiming they hear voices. There is no possible way to prove or disprove either side. So, to someone that has not adopted a particular religious belief... it honestly is like hearing the ramblings of mental illness.

I ask everyone... what would this discussion be about if Gov. Palin had claimed that:
"The ancient Egyptian diety Bat has instructed me to push for a pipeline in Alaska?" Like I said, we have essentially given Christianity a free pass to influence society in many small, and seemingly insignificant ways. To a person who has the Constitutional right to observe a different religion or none at all, this is a very scary reality. While most people stereotype Christians as a hug giving, happy go lucky group... they have, historically, been responsible for some of the most horrific actions the world has ever seen. People have the right to be hesitant... skeptical... afraid. With the REALITY that we can not prove or disprove a religion... how is a cult leader/follower any different than a church-going Christian? They are both basing their daily life on a FAITH based belief. With the argument that it doesn't matter and won't necessarily be an influence in forming policies... what if she was Wiccan? Satanic? (gasp) Muslim?
In modern times we have treated new-wave religious movements as "fanatical cults," even though the basic idea of the groups are almost identical.

I think this is why there is such a commotion over this whole situation. While it is easy for many to say that her faith will not play a role in shaping policy... it is equally difficult for others to ignore it. The depth of most religious beliefs go back to childhood. To claim that it won't have an influence is on their adult life is absolutely absurd. Whether that influence will be positive or negative on society is a TOTALLY different argument. But again, that implies that what is positive for one is the same for another.

We have all seen that religions are NOT perfect like everyone wishes they were. Dedicated followers of ALL religions have participated in awful acts of violence, abuse, and deceit. For an outsider, Christians are no different than Satanists. Fundamentally they are just two different groups, basing their belief structure on an "imaginary" diety. I always have to say... this does NOT mean that Christians and Satanists are BOTH evil groups. It also does not imply that Christians are good and Satanists are bad. All I am trying to say is that they TRULY are the exact same thing. Bad... good... irrelevant. They are both just organizations of people that believe that what they have FAITH in... is true. We can not prove or disprove either one.

With ALLLLL that said... What would this discussion look like if she went to the Temple of Set and spoke? An offshoot of the Church of Satan... which was even established by retired Lt. Colonel of the US Army Michael Aquino. He is supposedly instructed by the Egyptian God Set. With the absolute understanding that his claims are equally justified, and potentially true, as ANY politician making similar claims... I think we all know that one is considered a "fanatic nutcase," and one is simply a bible-toting Christian.

It is the essence of hypocrisy... and I think, the catalyst for all of the misunderstandings regarding this topic.

Fuck... I need to smoke :jointsmile:

dragonrider

09-05-2008, 09:16 PM

I ask everyone... what would this discussion be about if Gov. Palin had claimed that:
"The ancient Egyptian diety Bat has instructed me to push for a pipeline in Alaska?"

Well, this would be clearly crazy because God is real and Bat is just a man. In fact, he is the Batman!
BATMAN!
BATMAN!
BATMAN!

dragonrider

09-05-2008, 09:17 PM

I just wanted to say a few things on the topic of religion in politics. It seems that there are many debates on if it matters or why it matters. If, historically, Christianity played a miniscule role in societal evolution... this wouldn't be a discussion. It would just be a personal belief that she held sacred... in private. However, this is not the case. While we all preach that humans are allowed freedom to choose or not choose to follow a religion.... we are truly selective as to which faiths we approve of. When a politician claims that "God," has told them something... from a truly objective viewpoint... it is similar to a schizophrenic person claiming they hear voices. There is no possible way to prove or disprove either side. So, to someone that has not adopted a particular religious belief... it honestly is like hearing the ramblings of mental illness.

I ask everyone... what would this discussion be about if Gov. Palin had claimed that:
"The ancient Egyptian diety Bat has instructed me to push for a pipeline in Alaska?" Like I said, we have essentially given Christianity a free pass to influence society in many small, and seemingly insignificant ways. To a person who has the Constitutional right to observe a different religion or none at all, this is a very scary reality. While most people stereotype Christians as a hug giving, happy go lucky group... they have, historically, been responsible for some of the most horrific actions the world has ever seen. People have the right to be hesitant... skeptical... afraid. With the REALITY that we can not prove or disprove a religion... how is a cult leader/follower any different than a church-going Christian? They are both basing their daily life on a FAITH based belief. With the argument that it doesn't matter and won't necessarily be an influence in forming policies... what if she was Wiccan? Satanic? (gasp) Muslim?
In modern times we have treated new-wave religious movements as "fanatical cults," even though the basic idea of the groups are almost identical.

I think this is why there is such a commotion over this whole situation. While it is easy for many to say that her faith will not play a role in shaping policy... it is equally difficult for others to ignore it. The depth of most religious beliefs go back to childhood. To claim that it won't have an influence is on their adult life is absolutely absurd. Whether that influence will be positive or negative on society is a TOTALLY different argument. But again, that implies that what is positive for one is the same for another.

We have all seen that religions are NOT perfect like everyone wishes they were. Dedicated followers of ALL religions have participated in awful acts of violence, abuse, and deceit. For an outsider, Christians are no different than Satanists. Fundamentally they are just two different groups, basing their belief structure on an "imaginary" diety. I always have to say... this does NOT mean that Christians and Satanists are BOTH evil groups. It also does not imply that Christians are good and Satanists are bad. All I am trying to say is that they TRULY are the exact same thing. Bad... good... irrelevant. They are both just organizations of people that believe that what they have FAITH in... is true. We can not prove or disprove either one.

With ALLLLL that said... What would this discussion look like if she went to the Temple of Set and spoke? An offshoot of the Church of Satan... which was even established by retired Lt. Colonel of the US Army Michael Aquino. He is supposedly instructed by the Egyptian God Set. With the absolute understanding that his claims are equally justified, and potentially true, as ANY politician making similar claims... I think we all know that one is considered a "fanatic nutcase," and one is simply a bible-toting Christian.

It is the essence of hypocrisy... and I think, the catalyst for all of the misunderstandings regarding this topic.

Fuck... I need to smoke :jointsmile:

Sorry to go straight to the Batman thing after you put so much work into this post. This was a very well-thought-out post.

dragonrider

09-05-2008, 09:22 PM

As for everyone else.
300 VIEWS LATER, OVER 50 POSTS LATER.
NO LIST FOR OBAMA.:thumbsup:

P4B started a new thread and I answered over there: http://boards.cannabis.com/politics/161769-obama-what-qualifies-him-president.html

I didn't know you had asked the Obama question in this Palin thread.

daihashi

09-05-2008, 10:21 PM

Fuck... I need to smoke :jointsmile:

Honestly I don't really care for her saying God told her to do something. I honestly think that is ridiculous, but I understand how some religious people are and I know that they do not necessarily mean literally that God told them to do something.

If she said her crazy bat god diety told her to do it... well I'd probably even more shocked than if she said god told her to do something, but I would look at what she has done historically and judge her based off that.

I don't like her stance on abortion, but I doubt that would ever get pushed through anyway. Even Bush with a conservative congress didn't get that.

TheMetal1

09-05-2008, 10:59 PM

Stupid submit button... double post :stoned:

TheMetal1

09-05-2008, 11:01 PM

If she said her crazy bat god diety told her to do it... well I'd probably even more shocked than if she said god told her to do something...

That's all I was trying to say. The idea that Bat, an Egyptian goddess widely worshipped by thousands of people throughout history, is any less valid/important/real than the Christian "God," is completely hypocritical and disgustingly unfair. I'm not saying anything bad, but it somewhat supports what I said by you being less offended if she acted in the name of Christianity. We are subconsciously accepting certain religions as "more real."

To outsiders, it really is like mythology. I don't personally believe that Thor creates the thunder... but I know almost certainly that MANY people lived their entire life with this idea. Does it make it bad? Good? False? True? No... it just is.

I really don't want the thread to get off-topic... but I really just wanted to try and give some insight, at least how I see it. One persons God... is just another persons Devil. One persons terrorist is another persons freedom fighter. We all hear it, preach it... but do we get it?

but I would look at what she has done historically and judge her based off that.

EXACTLY :thumbsup:

8182KSKUSH

09-05-2008, 11:55 PM

daihashi

09-05-2008, 11:59 PM

P4B started a new thread and I answered over there: http://boards.cannabis.com/politics/161769-obama-what-qualifies-him-president.html

I didn't know you had asked the Obama question in this Palin thread.

Actually I read that thread and you didn't actually post what his accomplishments or experience was. You posted why you *think* he's qualified.

That was an opinion based thread (open discussion) and this one is looking for hard facts/sources to display what he has actually done.

dragonrider

09-06-2008, 12:01 AM

Yes, I did, in the very first post. And in multiple posts after that.

I don't doubt you did. I jumped in at the church/state/evolution point, so I missed that. Otherwise I would have answered you. My answer is in that other thread.

8182KSKUSH

09-06-2008, 12:16 AM

All examples taken from her introduction to the nation tonight during her fantastic speech. I know, it may be hard to swallow for the devout cult followers of Obama. Too bad! As Gulliani said, Obama is the least experienced candidate in at least 100 years!:thumbsup:

So let's review.
1. governor of the great state of Alaska,
2. mayor of my hometown.
3. actual responsibilities. So you mean she couldn't just be "present" and still be considered doing her job. You mean she was accountable for what happened and did not have the luxury of being 1 of 100 people that "worked" on stuff! Oh!

You could stop right there as for experience, and argueably she has more executive experience than Obama or Biden for that matter. But let's go on.

4. I took on the old politics as usual in Juneau ... when I stood up to the special interests, the lobbyists, big oil companies, and the good ol' boys network.

5.
I came to office promising major ethics reform, to end the culture of self-dealing. And today, that ethics reform is the law.

Again, she was actually responsible for specific legislation with regard to this subject, NOT 1 OF 100 THAT VOTED YEA OR NAY! AND THEN CLAIMED ALL THE CREDIT! I believe this is called "governing".
6. by request if possible and by veto if necessary.
She has actually used the power of the veto whilst governing, and understands how to use it to get results!
7.
Our state budget is under control.
We have a surplus.
(Has Obama even run a small business? Let alone a city, or state, let alone budget any of them, and do it successfully? Um, no.)

8.And I have protected the taxpayers by vetoing wasteful spending: nearly half a billion dollars in vetoes.

9. I suspended the state fuel tax,
10. and championed reform to end the abuses of earmark spending by Congress.
11. I told the Congress "thanks, but no thanks," for that Bridge to Nowhere.
12.
And despite fierce opposition from oil company lobbyists, who kind of liked things the way they were, we broke their monopoly on power and resources.
As governor, I insisted on competition and basic fairness to end their control of our state and return it to the people.
13.
I fought to bring about the largest private-sector infrastructure project in North American history.
And when that deal was struck, we began a nearly forty billion dollar natural gas pipeline to help lead America to energy independence.

14. we Americans need to produce more of our own oil and gas.
And take it from a gal who knows the North Slope of Alaska: we've got lots of both.

Wow, guess there is a reason she is the most popular sitting govenor in the U.S. today. This is just the short list, and by the way, she is just the VP on the ticket, IMHO, her experience and accomplishments make Obama's pale in comparisson, and make it laughable that he is even running for president. I invite anyone to post a list of Obama's accomplishments and experience that qualify him for even a VP position, let alone the presidency. LMFAO ALL DAY LONG!!!:D

P4B started a new thread and I answered over there: http://boards.cannabis.com/politics/161769-obama-what-qualifies-him-president.html

I didn't know you had asked the Obama question in this Palin thread.

I support him more for his policies, priorities, plans and judgement than his experience.

I have some misgivings about his short elected experience too. But as I said in a different thread, I think people are going to look past this experience problem soon, especially once we get into the debates.

As for Obama's experience, I think everyone knows about the basic history: community organizer, Illinois State Senate for 8 years, US Senate for 4 years.

His time in the Illinois State Senate included work on the state Earned Income Tax Credit and expansion of early childhood education.

His time in the US Senate included work with Tom Coburn to allow you to go online and see how and where your tax money is spent. He has worked on ethics reform. He is working with Dick Lugar on nuclear non-proliferation and securing Russian nukes. He is working to promote the greater use of alternative fuels and higher fuel standards for cars.

Obama is 26 years younger than McCain, so he doesn't have the same record, but personally, I agree with his platform, and that's why I am going to vote for Obama.

So basically, anyone that is elected to the senate is qualified based on the fact that they are in the senate as 1 of 100 senators, "working on stuff"
. You say he doesn't have the "same record", but actually, it would be more accurate to say that "he doesn't have much of any record period."

So that's it. I respect the fact that you are at least honest.:) But the accomplishments/experience/record you have put forth for Obama, hardly even stacks up to what the VP for the GOP ticket has done. That was the point of this thread.

Again, Palin, the VPs quick, short list of accomplishments/experience:

So let's review.
1. governor of the great state of Alaska,
2. mayor of my hometown.
3. actual responsibilities. So you mean she couldn't just be "present" and still be considered doing her job. You mean she was accountable for what happened and did not have the luxury of being 1 of 100 people that "worked" on stuff! Oh!

You could stop right there as for experience, and argueably she has more executive experience than Obama or Biden for that matter. But let's go on.

4. I took on the old politics as usual in Juneau ... when I stood up to the special interests, the lobbyists, big oil companies, and the good ol' boys network.

5.
I came to office promising major ethics reform, to end the culture of self-dealing. And today, that ethics reform is the law.

Again, she was actually responsible for specific legislation with regard to this subject, NOT 1 OF 100 THAT VOTED YEA OR NAY! AND THEN CLAIMED ALL THE CREDIT! I believe this is called "governing".
6. by request if possible and by veto if necessary.
She has actually used the power of the veto whilst governing, and understands how to use it to get results!
7.
Our state budget is under control.
We have a surplus.
(Has Obama even run a small business? Let alone a city, or state, let alone budget any of them, and do it successfully? Um, no.)

8.And I have protected the taxpayers by vetoing wasteful spending: nearly half a billion dollars in vetoes.

9. I suspended the state fuel tax,
10. and championed reform to end the abuses of earmark spending by Congress.
11. I told the Congress "thanks, but no thanks," for that Bridge to Nowhere.
12.
And despite fierce opposition from oil company lobbyists, who kind of liked things the way they were, we broke their monopoly on power and resources.
As governor, I insisted on competition and basic fairness to end their control of our state and return it to the people.
13.
I fought to bring about the largest private-sector infrastructure project in North American history.
And when that deal was struck, we began a nearly forty billion dollar natural gas pipeline to help lead America to energy independence.

14. we Americans need to produce more of our own oil and gas.
And take it from a gal who knows the North Slope of Alaska: we've got lots of both.

And Obama the democrats Presidential Nominee:

1.community organizer, Illinois State Senate for 8 years, US Senate for 4 years

2.work on the state Earned Income Tax Credit and expansion of early childhood education.

3.work with Tom Coburn to allow you to go online and see how and where your tax money is spent.

4.worked on ethics reform.

5.working with Dick Lugar on nuclear non-proliferation and securing Russian nukes.

6.working to promote the greater use of alternative fuels and higher fuel standards for cars.

I ask again, who exaclty should we be questioning on the issue of experience/accomplishments/record? :wtf:

8182KSKUSH

09-06-2008, 12:18 AM

Oh yeah, I forgot that he has been campaigning for the office of the president of the US too! :D

daihashi

09-06-2008, 12:24 AM

This is probably not the place to get into the evolution debate. But....

[QUOTE]I think maybe you are talking about "Intelligent Design." The term "Creationism" is generally used to describe the belief that the Bible creation story is literlally true in every detail --- universe is 6000 years old, Adam and Eve, all animals and plants created in exactly the form they have today.

No I'm talking about creationism. As a matter of fact I linked earlier to a table that showed the different types of creationism. There is not just 1 sect. Intelligent design is a form of creationism.

"Intelligent Design" is the idea that life has changed over time, but that it is guided by an "Intelligent Designer" who is generally taken to be God. The argument for it is usually that life is too complex to have evolved through purely physical phenomena.

Yes, I'm aware, but thank you?

There are infinite varieties of beliefs all along this spectrum.

The reason these ideas are not considered theories for scientific purposes is that they do not propose any method of testing, which is required in order to be a hypothesis or a theory. In addition, pure creationism is actually shown to be inconsistent with many known facts, so it's never going to be a theory --- plain and simple.

I've said I personally don't believe in creationism. I'm much to logical for that, but you deny the possibility because of the only thing that is really instilled in us from the start of school is evolution. It's easy to say "this is the way it is and that's all there is to it" but it takes something more to acknowledge the possibility. You're closing up and denying that it's even possible. Science can't disprove god, Until Science can then you really can't disprove creationism.

Do you understand what I'm saying? Again keep in mind I don't even truely believe in god, but I'm open minded to all things yet reasonable. I don't believe in creationism but I'm willing to listen and not judge.

Besides, the last I checked being a Science guru wasn't a necessary qualification for the VP spot.

The Big Bang theory is tested through astronimical observation that shows the universe is expanding. It is also tested through quantum physics experiments that attempt to recreate conditions similar to the earliest moments of time. It contimues to be tested and refined.

There is much agreement that the universe is expanding however there is nothing to prove that the universe collapsed on itself and then re-expanded as the big bang theory, in summary, basically states.

I do believe in the big bang theory but fact remains that it is not proven.

Wormholes are a theory that grows out of purely theoretical physics --- mathematical extrapolation, like General Relativity and things like Black Holes. These kinds of theories are much harder to test, but like General Relativity and Black Holes, the theories do make predictions about what we should be able to observe if the theories are true. And eventually that is either born out or not. In the case of General Relativity and Black Holes, the astronomical predictions were later observed and they are considered well-founded theories now. I don't know what observations are predicted for Wormholes.

but one has not been witnessed or proven to exist.. I believe in wormholes but fact remains is that it is not proven.

The Dark Matter theory is tested through astronimical observation that shows large anmounts of gravity that cannot be accounted for by things we can observe. We know the gravitaional effect is there, but do not claim to know specifically what it is. This is another area pursued through both astronomy and quantum physcal experiments.

Actually there are theories about dark matter that it doesn't actually exist but rather there is additional molecular weight that is not being accounted for. I forgot the details of it, I need to find the name of the scientist I saw in that interview on PBS and look up more of his work; however there are various theories about dark matter.

Again it has not been proven to be fact... I don't necessarily believe in dark matter but I believe there is something there that we haven't found yet that attributes to our belief in dark matter.

Again, this is not fact.. can't be proven.

Cold Fusion is not a theory. It is a physical application. Actually cold fusion has never been demonstrated as far as I know.

It has been demonstrated but the results have been varied and difficult to reproduce. They need Helium-3 which does not occur naturally on earth. It is suspected that there is a large abundance of Helium-3 available on the moon. This is one reason many scientists wish to return to the moon.

The purpose of searching is that there IS hope of finding answeres.

Many scientists, including evolution scientists, believe in God. There is nothing wrong with that or the idea that Goid initiated creation. However, scientists belive there are physical mechanisms to everything that can be observed and explained. Beliefs that rely on supernatural forces as the actual MECHANISM are not scientifc, unless they can propose theories for the supernatural being or force, in which case it's no longer supernatural, and it's back to science and not faith anymore.

That's the point, they are trying to prove, through science that there was a designer. This has only been a truely active field for the last 30 years. Science has had since the beginning of time.

Am I crazy for believing in things that are not proven as fact?

edit: Just out of curiousity dragonrider, do you believe in god?

dragonrider

09-06-2008, 12:25 AM

I guess you want to talk about it here, not in the other post, Kush.

P4B, maybe just merge your thread on Obama into this one on Palin, because I guess this is where it is happening.

Here is my WHOLE post from the other thread, not just the parts you sampled, Kush:

I support Obama more for his policies, priorities, plans and judgement than his experience.

I have some misgivings about his short elected experience too. But as I said in a different thread, I think people are going to look past this experience problem soon, especially once we get into the debates.

It's obvious that Obama does not have the length of experience that McCain has. Experience is valuable, but what EXACTLY is the value of experience? The value of experience is that it gives you judgement. Experience teaches you about issues, how to react to situations, and helps you make good decisions. Some people have that kind of good judgement with only a little experience, while some people who have a lifetime of experience never develop good judgement. I think Obama has good judgement and a good understanding of the issues despite having fewer years than McCain.

Maybe that's the same kind of thinking McCain used to pick Palin despite her lack of experience --- maybe he thought that she had good judgement, or maybe it was something else. Whatever it was, he thought she had something that made her worthy of being president despite her lack of expereice, although I can't really figure it out. Or maybe McCain has bad judgement despite his many years of expereince and picked her for a bad reason.

As for Obama's experience, I think everyone knows about the basic history: community organizer, Illinois State Senate for 8 years, US Senate for 4 years.

His time in the Illinois State Senate included work on the state Earned Income Tax Credit and expansion of early childhood education.

His time in the US Senate included work with Tom Coburn to allow you to go online and see how and where your tax money is spent. He has worked on ethics reform. He is working with Dick Lugar on nuclear non-proliferation and securing Russian nukes. He is working to promote the greater use of alternative fuels and higher fuel standards for cars.

Obama is 26 years younger than McCain, so he doesn't have the same record, but personally, I agree with his platform, and that's why I am going to vote for Obama.

If he can have good command of issues in the debates and show that he has good policies and good judgement, people will come around to that. If not, then he won't win.

8182KSKUSH

09-06-2008, 12:34 AM

Thanks, I was just trying to cut through the blahbity blah and get to the actual items of accomplishments/experience/record. To me the rest of the post was just a way of justifying or prefacing your post by saying, "before I give you some examples, I just want to state in advance I realize he has no record to speak of!"
That's the way I took it.
This is no dig at you at all. I applaud the fact that you made an effort, it just so happens you don't have anything to work with.:D

TheMetal1

09-06-2008, 12:49 AM

There is much agreement that the universe is expanding however there is nothing to prove that the universe collapsed on itself and then re-expanded as the big bang theory, in summary, basically states.

Although there is absolutely not any form of proof... but I think there is an understanding of how that could potentially happen. Not sure of the official term but I believe it is the Big Bang/Big Crunch theory. At the origin point of infinite matter imploding on itself... intense heat... causing expansion. As the universe expands and the distance increases... heat will decrease. Eventually this loss of heat will "freeze" all matter in the Universe... causing it to contract... thus condensing down onto itself. Friction increases and causes heat... implosion... Universe expansion. A continuous cycle of Big Bang and then Big Crunch. Potentially supporting the idea transfer of energy through matter and the religious belief of reincarnation.

P.S. Now that I think of it... I have no idea where I learned that. Maybe a dream? :hippy:

Sorry... just wanted to interject that :stoned: Feel free to discuss the actual point of this thread, which is the experience of Gov. Palin. Hahaha no idea how this got brought up.

dragonrider

09-06-2008, 01:28 AM

Daihashi, I'm sure you saw Delta9's post:

Please - lets not have another Creationism/ID debate... :wtf:

Must .... resist... posting

The reason he said that was that last year he, and I, and a bunch of other members got sucked into a multi-thread debate on ID, Evolution and Creationism. It seemed to last for weeks and involved hundreds of incredibly lengthy tit-for-tat posts. It was epic! Threads were closed! People got banned! Awesome!

I really regret getting pulled into another debate on that tiopic in this political thread, and I'm dropping it now. I think I said enough above. If you REALLY want to know what I think on this, dig around for some of those other threads --- I definetely said everything I had to say on this topic multiple times over at that time.

The Figment

09-06-2008, 01:49 AM

I won't quilify the "Experince" thing (I feel like we are beating a dead horse on this) but I did run across this....And it has been "Snoped"

A note to all by Anne Kilkenny

Dear friends,

So many people have asked me about what I know about Sarah Palin in the
last 2 days that I decided to write something up . . .

Basically, Sarah Palin and Hillary Clinton have only 2 things in
common: their gender and their good looks. :)

You have my permission to forward this to your friends/email contacts
with my name and email address attached, but please do not post it on
any websites, as there are too many kooks out there . . .

Thanks,
Anne

[ Note by web_admin: This was already posted on Washington Independent
comments area and was meant by the author to be read by many, but
readers need sourcing. The NY Times has talked with Anne since. ]

ABOUT SARAH PALIN

I am a resident of Wasilla, Alaska. I have known Sarah since 1992.
Everyone here knows Sarah, so it is nothing special to say we are on a
first-name basis. Our children have attended the same schools. Her
father was my child's favorite substitute teacher. I also am on a
first name basis with her parents and mother-in-law. I attended more
City Council meetings during her administration than about 99% of the
residents of the city.

She is enormously popular; in every way sheâ??s like the most popular
girl in middle school. Even men who think she is a poor choice and
won't vote for her can't quit smiling when talking about her because
she is a "babe".

It is astonishing and almost scary how well she can keep a secret. She
kept her most recent pregnancy a secret from her children and parents
for seven months.

She is "pro-life". She recently gave birth to a Down's syndrome baby.
There is no cover-up involved, here; Trig is her baby.

She is energetic and hardworking. She regularly worked out at the gym.

She is savvy. She doesn't take positions; she just "puts things out
there" and if they prove to be popular, then she takes credit.

Her husband works a union job on the North Slope for BP and is a
champion snowmobile racer. Todd Palinâ??s kind of job is highly
sought-after because of the schedule and high pay. He arranges his
work schedule so he can fish for salmon in Bristol Bay for a month or
so in summer, but by no stretch of the imagination is fishing their
major source of income. Nor has her life-style ever been anything
like that of native Alaskans.

Sarah and her whole family are avid hunters.

She's smart.

Her experience is as mayor of a city with a population of about 5,000
(at the time), and less than 2 years as governor of a state with about
670,000 residents.

During her mayoral administration most of the actual work of running
this small city was turned over to an administrator. She had been
pushed to hire this administrator by party power-brokers after she had
gotten herself into some trouble over precipitous firings which had
given rise to a recall campaign.

Sarah campaigned in Wasilla as a â??fiscal conservativeâ?. During her 6
years as Mayor, she increased general government expenditures by over
33%. During those same 6 years the amount of taxes collected by the
City increased by 38%. This was during a period of low inflation
(1996-2002). She reduced progressive property taxes and increased a
regressive sales tax which taxed even food. The tax cuts that she
promoted benefited large corporate property owners way more than they
benefited residents.

The huge increases in tax revenues during her mayoral administration
werenâ??t enough to fund everything on her wish list though, borrowed
money was needed, too. She inherited a city with zero debt, but left it
with indebtedness of over $22 million. What did Mayor Palin encourage
the voters to borrow money for? Was it the infrastructure that she said
she supported? The sewage treatment plant that the city lacked? or a
new library? No. $1m for a park. $15m-plus for construction of a
multi-use sports complex which she rushed through to build on a piece
of property that the City didnâ??t even have clear title to, that was
still in litigation 7 yrs later--to the delight of the lawyers
involved! The sports complex itself is a nice addition to the
community but a huge money pit, not the profit-generator she claimed it
would be. She also supported bonds for $5.5m for road projects that
could have been done in 5-7 yrs without any borrowing.

While Mayor, City Hall was extensively remodeled and her office
redecorated more than once.

These are small numbers, but Wasilla is a very small city.

As an oil producer, the high price of oil has created a budget surplus
in Alaska. Rather than invest this surplus in technology that will
make us energy independent and increase efficiency, as Governor she
proposed distribution of this surplus to every individual in the state.

In this time of record state revenues and budget surpluses, she
recommended that the state borrow/bond for road projects, even while
she proposed distribution of surplus state revenues: spend today's
surplus, borrow for needs.

Sheâ??s not very tolerant of divergent opinions or open to outside ideas
or compromise. As Mayor, she fought ideas that werenâ??t generated by
her or her staff. Ideas werenâ??t evaluated on their merits, but on the
basis of who proposed them.

While Sarah was Mayor of Wasilla she tried to fire our highly respected
City Librarian because the Librarian refused to consider removing from
the library some books that Sarah wanted removed. City residents
rallied to the defense of the City Librarian and against Palin's
attempt at out-and-out censorship, so Palin backed down and withdrew
her termination letter. People who fought her attempt to oust the
Librarian are on her enemies list to this day.

Sarah complained about the â??old boyâ??s clubâ? when she first ran for
Mayor, so what did she bring Wasilla? A new set of "old boys". Palin
fired most of the experienced staff she inherited. At the City and as
Governor she hired or elevated new, inexperienced, obscure people,
creating a staff totally dependent on her for their jobs and eternally
grateful and fiercely loyal--loyal to the point of abusing their power
to further her personal agenda, as she has acknowledged happened in the
case of pressuring the Stateâ??s top cop (see below).

As Mayor, Sarah fired Wasillaâ??s Police Chief because he â??intimidatedâ?
her, she told the press. As Governor, her recent firing of Alaska's top
cop has the ring of familiarity about it. He served at her pleasure
and she had every legal right to fire him, but it's pretty clear that
an important factor in her decision to fire him was because he wouldn't
fire her sister's ex-husband, a State Trooper. Under investigation
for abuse of power, she has had to admit that more than 2 dozen
contacts were made between her staff and family to the person that she
later fired, pressuring him to fire her ex-brother-in-law. She tried to
replace the man she fired with a man who she knew had been reprimanded
for sexual harassment; when this caused a public furor, she withdrew
her support.

She has bitten the hand of every person who extended theirs to her in
help. The City Council person who personally escorted her around town
introducing her to voters when she first ran for Wasilla City Council
became one of her first targets when she was later elected Mayor. She
abruptly fired her loyal City Administrator; even people who didnâ??t
like the guy were stunned by this ruthlessness.

Fear of retribution has kept all of these people from saying anything
publicly about her.

When then-Governor Murkowski was handing out political plums, Sarah got
the best, Chair of the Alaska Oil and Gas Conservation Commission: one
of the few jobs not in Juneau and one of the best paid. She had no
background in oil & gas issues. Within months of scoring this great
job which paid $122,400/yr, she was complaining in the press about the
high salary. I was told that she hated that job: the commute, the
structured hours, the work. Sarah became aware that a member of this
Commission (who was also the State Chair of the Republican Party)
engaged in unethical behavior on the job. In a gutsy move which some
undoubtedly cautioned her could be political suicide, Sarah solved all
her problems in one fell swoop: got out of the job she hated and
garnered gobs of media attention as the patron saint of ethics and as a
gutsy fighter against the â??old boysâ?? clubâ? when she dramatically quit,
exposing this manâ??s ethics violations (for which he was fined).

As Mayor, she had her hand stuck out as far as anyone for pork from
Senator Ted Stevens. Lately, she has castigated his pork-barrel
politics and publicly humiliated him. She only opposed the â??bridge to
nowhereâ? after it became clear that it would be unwise not to.

As Governor, she gave the Legislature no direction and budget
guidelines, then made a big grandstand display of line-item vetoing
projects, calling them pork. Public outcry and further legislative
action restored most of these projects--which had been vetoed simply
because she was not aware of their importance--but with the unobservant
she had gained a reputation as â??anti-porkâ?.

She is solidly Republican: no political maverick. The State party
leaders hate her because she has bit them in the back and humiliated
them. Other members of the party object to her self-description as a
fiscal conservative.

Around Wasilla there are people who went to high school with Sarah.
They call her â??Sarah Barracudaâ? because of her unbridled ambition and
predatory ruthlessness. Before she became so powerful, very ugly
stories circulated around town about shenanigans she pulled to be made
point guard on the high school basketball team. When Sarah's
mother-in-law, a highly respected member of the community and
experienced manager, ran for Mayor, Sarah refused to endorse her.

As Governor, she stepped outside of the box and put together of package
of legislation known as â??AGIAâ? that forced the oil companies to march
to the beat of her drum.

Like most Alaskans, she favors drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife
Refuge. She has questioned if the loss of sea ice is linked to
global warming. She campaigned â??as a private citizenâ? against a state
initiaitive that would have either a) protected salmon streams from
pollution from mines, or b) tied up in the courts all mining in the
state (depending on who you listen to). She has pushed the Stateâ??s
lawsuit against the Dept. of the Interiorâ??s decision to list polar
bears as threatened species.

McCain is the oldest person to ever run for President; Sarah will be a
heartbeat away from being President.

There has to be literally millions of Americans who are more
knowledgeable and experienced than she.

However, thereâ??s a lot of people who have underestimated her and are
regretting it.

CLAIM VS FACT
â?¢â??Hockey momâ?: true for a few years
â?¢â??PTA momâ?: true years ago when her first-born was in elementary
school, not since
â?¢â??NRA supporterâ?: absolutely true
â?¢social conservative: mixed. Opposes gay marriage, BUT vetoed a bill
that would have denied benefits to employees in same-sex relationships
(said she did this because it was unconsitutional).
â?¢pro-creationism: mixed. Supports it, BUT did nothing as Governor to
promote it.
â?¢â??Pro-lifeâ?: mixed. Knowingly gave birth to a Downâ??s syndrome baby
BUT declined to call a special legislative session on some pro-life
legislation
â?¢â??Experiencedâ?: Some high schools have more students than Wasilla has
residents. Many cities have more residents than the state of Alaska.
No legislative experience other than City Council. Little hands-on
supervisory or managerial experience; needed help of a city
administrator to run town of about 5,000.
â?¢political maverick: not at all
â?¢gutsy: absolutely!
â?¢open & transparent: ??? Good at keeping secrets. Not good at
explaining actions.
â?¢has a developed philosophy of public policy: no
â?¢â?a Greenieâ?: no. Turned Wasilla into a wasteland of big box stores
and disconnected parking lots. Is pro-drilling off-shore and in ANWR.
â?¢fiscal conservative: not by my definition!
â?¢pro-infrastructure: No. Promoted a sports complex and park in a city
without a sewage treatment plant or storm drainage system. Built
streets to early 20th century standards.
â?¢pro-tax relief: Lowered taxes for businesses, increased tax burden on
residents
â?¢pro-small government: No. Oversaw greatest expansion of city
government in Wasillaâ??s history.
â?¢pro-labor/pro-union. No. Just because her husband works union
doesnâ??t make her pro-labor. I have seen nothing to support any claim
that she is pro-labor/pro-union.

WHY AM I WRITING THIS?

First, I have long believed in the importance of being an informed
voter. I am a voter registrar. For 10 years I put on student voting
programs in the schools. If you google my name (Anne Kilkenny +
Alaska), you will find references to my participation in local
government, education, and PTA/parent organizations.

Secondly, I've always operated in the belief that "Bad things happen
when good people stay silent". Few people know as much as I do because
few have gone to as many City Council meetings.

Third, I am just a housewife. I don't have a job she can bump me out
of. I don't belong to any organization that she can hurt. But, I am no
fool; she is immensely popular here, and it is likely that this will
cost me somehow in the future: thatâ??s life.

Fourth, she has hated me since back in 1996, when I was one of the 100
or so people who rallied to support the City Librarian against Sarah's
attempt at censorship.

Fifth, I looked around and realized that everybody else was afraid to
say anything because they were somehow vulnerable.

CAVEATS
I am not a statistician. I developed the numbers for the increase in
spending & taxation 2 years ago (when Palin was running for Governor)
from information supplied to me by the Finance Director of the City of
Wasilla, and I can't recall exactly what I adjusted for: did I adjust
for inflation? for population increases? Right now, it is impossible
for a private person to get any info out of City Hall--they are
swamped. So I can't verify my numbers.

You may have noticed that there are various numbers circulating for the
population of Wasilla, ranging from my "about 5,000", up to 9,000. The
day Palinâ??s selection was announced a city official told me that the
current population is about 7,000. The official 2000 census count was
5,460. I have used about 5,000 because Palin was Mayor from 1996 to
2002, and the city was growing rapidly in the mid-90â??s.

Anne Kilkenny
August 31, 2008

daihashi

09-06-2008, 01:55 AM

Although there is absolutely not any form of proof... but I think there is an understanding of how that could potentially happen. Not sure of the official term but I believe it is the Big Bang/Big Crunch theory. At the origin point of infinite matter imploding on itself... intense heat... causing expansion. As the universe expands and the distance increases... heat will decrease. Eventually this loss of heat will "freeze" all matter in the Universe... causing it to contract... thus condensing down onto itself. Friction increases and causes heat... implosion... Universe expansion. A continuous cycle of Big Bang and then Big Crunch. Potentially supporting the idea transfer of energy through matter and the religious belief of reincarnation.

P.S. Now that I think of it... I have no idea where I learned that. Maybe a dream? :hippy:

Sorry... just wanted to interject that :stoned: Feel free to discuss the actual point of this thread, which is the experience of Gov. Palin. Hahaha no idea how this got brought up.

dude.. I want what you're smoking.. no sarcasm or anything, it seems to have you going into some pretty good deep thought. What strain or did you even smoke?

I only ask because that idea in some twisted way makes some sense philosophically, and all the best philosophical ideas seem to come to me when I'm stoned :stoned:

8182KSKUSH

09-06-2008, 02:18 AM

CAVEATS
I am not a statistician. I developed the numbers for the increase in
spending & taxation 2 years ago (when Palin was running for Governor)
from information supplied to me by the Finance Director of the City of
Wasilla, and I can't recall exactly what I adjusted for: did I adjust
for inflation? for population increases? Right now, it is impossible
for a private person to get any info out of City Hall--they are
swamped. So I can't verify my numbers.

Maybe she should have put this "caveat" at the start of the letter. I won't dismiss this out of hand, but is it possible to get any other source than this lady? The lady that admits, she can't verify any of the "numbers" that she specifically makes mention of? :wtf:
And one thing that is striking, despite all the horrible bad things that she claims about Palin, apparently everyone in Alaska, and that city is completely un-aware of all of this, given that she WASN'T re-called, and she WON the Gov. seat, and is currently the most popular sitting govenor in the U.S. with an approval rating over 80%. So this is either the smartest, on the cutting edge of information lady in Alaska, or most of the people there are incredibly stupid.:wtf:

My guess, this lady weighs in at about 300lbs. and has a deep seeded hatred for Palin. Just a guess though. The points in Palin's speech can be verified rather easily, can the points this lady is making?:wtf:

8182KSKUSH

09-06-2008, 02:29 AM

So far,
I have been able to verify that this lady is in fact a real person that lives in Alaska and is whom she claims to be. That's about it.
As for verifing any of the claims she makes, that is a different story. So far the only things that I can find are solely about the "letter" that she has written.
So I ask again.
Can any of the claims made in the letter be verified, at all. Especially since at the end she states that she can't.:wtf:

The Figment

09-06-2008, 04:04 AM

A jackass would have an 80 percent approval rateing in most any state if it gave everybody $1200 bucks.

try Snopes

MIDNIGHTspecial

09-06-2008, 04:20 AM

what scares me about the McCain/Palin ticket being elected (besides their christian/fascist viewpoints) is that, and I'm sorry to say it, McCain doesn't have much time left on the ol' clock, and as the governor of a small town of 6000 people being Palin's only experience (among other 'blemishes' in her record)... one has to wonder what McCain and his cronies were thinking picking her, as she is further from president material than karl rove is from a full head of hair.

also, alaska being kinda close to russia doesn't make one experienced in matters of foreign policy

8182KSKUSH

09-06-2008, 04:53 AM

A jackass would have an 80 percent approval rateing in most any state if it gave everybody $1200 bucks.

try Snopes

Really? So what's up with Bush's approval rating?
I did "try" Snopes. They confirm, she is whom she says she is. They do not confirm any of the information contained in the letter.
Try Again.:D

and as the governor of a small town of 6000 people being Palin's only experience

You might have missed the very first post of the thread. I guess it's her only experience, besides this:

So let's review.
1. governor of the great state of Alaska,
2. mayor of my hometown.
3. actual responsibilities. So you mean she couldn't just be "present" and still be considered doing her job. You mean she was accountable for what happened and did not have the luxury of being 1 of 100 people that "worked" on stuff! Oh!

You could stop right there as for experience, and argueably she has more executive experience than Obama or Biden for that matter. But let's go on.

4. I took on the old politics as usual in Juneau ... when I stood up to the special interests, the lobbyists, big oil companies, and the good ol' boys network.

5.
I came to office promising major ethics reform, to end the culture of self-dealing. And today, that ethics reform is the law.

Again, she was actually responsible for specific legislation with regard to this subject, NOT 1 OF 100 THAT VOTED YEA OR NAY! AND THEN CLAIMED ALL THE CREDIT! I believe this is called "governing".
6. by request if possible and by veto if necessary.
She has actually used the power of the veto whilst governing, and understands how to use it to get results!
7.
Our state budget is under control.
We have a surplus.
(Has Obama even run a small business? Let alone a city, or state, let alone budget any of them, and do it successfully? Um, no.)

8.And I have protected the taxpayers by vetoing wasteful spending: nearly half a billion dollars in vetoes.

9. I suspended the state fuel tax,
10. and championed reform to end the abuses of earmark spending by Congress.
11. I told the Congress "thanks, but no thanks," for that Bridge to Nowhere.
12.
And despite fierce opposition from oil company lobbyists, who kind of liked things the way they were, we broke their monopoly on power and resources.
As governor, I insisted on competition and basic fairness to end their control of our state and return it to the people.
13.
I fought to bring about the largest private-sector infrastructure project in North American history.
And when that deal was struck, we began a nearly forty billion dollar natural gas pipeline to help lead America to energy independence.

14. we Americans need to produce more of our own oil and gas.
And take it from a gal who knows the North Slope of Alaska: we've got lots of both.

Wow, guess there is a reason she is the most popular sitting govenor in the U.S. today. This is just the short list, and by the way, she is just the VP on the ticket, IMHO, her experience and accomplishments make Obama's pale in comparisson, and make it laughable that he is even running for president. I invite anyone to post a list of Obama's accomplishments and experience that qualify him for even a VP position, let alone the presidency. LMFAO ALL DAY LONG!!!:D

also, alaska being kinda close to russia doesn't make one experienced in matters of foreign policy

Wow, that was super funny the first time I heard it on comedy central. BTW, that's the only place I have heard it, aside from a few others repeating it and passing it off as if it were suggested by someone from the GOP.:thumbsup:

Breukelen advocaat

09-06-2008, 05:00 AM

Are you trying to say that the founding fathers weren't religiously influenced? I thought that during that period of time, an athiest was another name for witch.

Have a good one!:s4:
I'd guess that none of the founding fathers believed in "witches". As far as atheists, which he was not, Jefferson had some very kind things to say about them, and in fact said that they could be more advanced than people who believed in religion.

Jefferson and Washington were Deists. They did not believe in a personal god, savior gods, or anything supernatural in the Bible. I do not subscribe to this belief (Deism), but for their time they were way ahead of religion - and more advanced in their thinkiing than average even today.

The type of belief system that Palin has is in direct opposition to almost everything that Jefferson stood for. Here's some choice quotes from him regarding religion:

Ignorance is preferable to error; and he is less remote from the truth who believes nothing, than he who believes what is wrong.
-- Thomas Jefferson

And the day will come when the mystical generation of Jesus, by the supreme being as his father in the womb of a virgin will be classed with the fable of the generation of Minerve in the brain of Jupiter. But may we hope that the dawn of reason and freedom of thought in these United States will do away with this artificial scaffolding, and restore to us the primitive and genuine doctrines of this most venerated reformer of human errors.
-Thomas Jefferson, Letter to John Adams, April 11, 1823

It is between fifty and sixty years since I read it [the Apocalypse], and I then considered it merely the ravings of a maniac, no more worthy nor capable of explanation than the incoherences of our own nightly dreams.
-Thomas Jefferson, letter to General Alexander Smyth, Jan. 17, 1825

Millions of innocent men, women and children, since the introduction of Christianity, have been burnt, tortured, fined and imprisoned; yet we have not advanced one inch towards uniformity.
-Thomas Jefferson, Notes on Virginia, 1782

Question with boldness even the existence of a god; because if there be one he must approve of the homage of reason more than that of blindfolded fear.
-Thomas Jefferson, Letter to Peter Carr, August 10, 1787

I never submitted the whole system of my opinions to the creed of any party of men whatever in religion, in philosophy, in politics, or in anything else where I was capable of thinking for myself. Such an addiction is the last degradation of a free and moral agent.
-Thomas Jefferson, letter to Francis Hopkinson, March 13, 1789

History, I believe, furnishes no example of a priest-ridden people maintaining a free civil government. This marks the lowest grade of ignorance of which their civil as well as religious leaders will always avail themselves for their own purposes.
-Thomas Jefferson to Alexander von Humboldt, Dec. 6, 1813.

As you say of yourself, I too am an Epicurian. I consider the genuine (not the imputed) doctrines of Epicurus as containing everything rational in moral philosophy which Greece and Rome have left us.
-Thomas Jefferson, letter to William Short, Oct. 31, 1819

Priests...dread the advance of science as witches do the approach of daylight and scowl on the fatal harbinger announcing the subversions of the duperies on which they live.
-Thomas Jefferson, Letter to Correa de Serra, April 11, 1820

Breukelen advocaat

09-06-2008, 05:02 AM

Are you trying to say that the founding fathers weren't religiously influenced? I thought that during that period of time, an athiest was another name for witch.

Have a good one!:s4:
Jefferson and Washington were Deists. They did not believe in a personal god, savior gods, or anything supernatural in the Bible. I do not subscribe to this belief (Deism), but for their time they were way ahead of religion - and more advanced in their thinkiing than average even today.

The type of belief system, and mentality, that Palin has is in direct opposition to almost everything that Jefferson stood for. Here's some choice quotes from him regarding religion:

Ignorance is preferable to error; and he is less remote from the truth who believes nothing, than he who believes what is wrong.
-- Thomas Jefferson

And the day will come when the mystical generation of Jesus, by the supreme being as his father in the womb of a virgin will be classed with the fable of the generation of Minerve in the brain of Jupiter. But may we hope that the dawn of reason and freedom of thought in these United States will do away with this artificial scaffolding, and restore to us the primitive and genuine doctrines of this most venerated reformer of human errors.
-Thomas Jefferson, Letter to John Adams, April 11, 1823

It is between fifty and sixty years since I read it [the Apocalypse], and I then considered it merely the ravings of a maniac, no more worthy nor capable of explanation than the incoherences of our own nightly dreams.
-Thomas Jefferson, letter to General Alexander Smyth, Jan. 17, 1825

Millions of innocent men, women and children, since the introduction of Christianity, have been burnt, tortured, fined and imprisoned; yet we have not advanced one inch towards uniformity.
-Thomas Jefferson, Notes on Virginia, 1782

Question with boldness even the existence of a god; because if there be one he must approve of the homage of reason more than that of blindfolded fear.
-Thomas Jefferson, Letter to Peter Carr, August 10, 1787

I never submitted the whole system of my opinions to the creed of any party of men whatever in religion, in philosophy, in politics, or in anything else where I was capable of thinking for myself. Such an addiction is the last degradation of a free and moral agent.
-Thomas Jefferson, letter to Francis Hopkinson, March 13, 1789

History, I believe, furnishes no example of a priest-ridden people maintaining a free civil government. This marks the lowest grade of ignorance of which their civil as well as religious leaders will always avail themselves for their own purposes.
-Thomas Jefferson to Alexander von Humboldt, Dec. 6, 1813.

As you say of yourself, I too am an Epicurian. I consider the genuine (not the imputed) doctrines of Epicurus as containing everything rational in moral philosophy which Greece and Rome have left us.
-Thomas Jefferson, letter to William Short, Oct. 31, 1819

Breukelen advocaat

09-06-2008, 05:04 AM

Founders were not Christians

One of the most common statements from the "Religious Right" is that they want this country to "return to the Christian principles on which it was founded". However, a little research into American history will show that this statement is a lie. The men responsible for building the foundation of the United States had little use for Christianity, and many were strongly opposed to it. They were men of The Enlightenment, not men of Christianity. They were Deists who did not believe the bible was true.

When the Founders wrote the nation's Constitution, they specified that "no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States." (Article 6, section 3) This provision was radical in its day-- giving equal citizenship to believers and non-believers alike. They wanted to ensure that no single religion could make the claim of being the official, national religion, such as England had. Nowhere in the Constitution does it mention religion, except in exclusionary terms. The words "Jesus Christ, Christianity, Bible, and God" are never mentioned in the Constitution-- not once.

The Declaration of Independence gives us important insight into the opinions of the Founding Fathers. Thomas Jefferson wrote that the power of the government is derived from the governed. Up until that time, it was claimed that kings ruled nations by the authority of God. The Declaration was a radical departure from the idea of divine authority.

The 1796 treaty with Tripoli states that the United States was "in no sense founded on the Christian religion" (see below). This was not an idle statement, meant to satisfy muslims-- they believed it and meant it. This treaty was written under the presidency of George Washington and signed under the presidency of John Adams.
http://freethought.mbdojo.com/titleXI.jpg
None of the Founding Fathers were atheists. Most of the Founders were Deists, which is to say they thought the universe had a creator, but that he does not concern himself with the daily lives of humans, and does not directly communicate with humans, either by revelation or by sacred books. They spoke often of God, (Nature's God or the God of Nature), but this was not the God of the bible. They did not deny that there was a person called Jesus, and praised him for his benevolent teachings, but they flatly denied his divinity. Some people speculate that if Charles Darwin had lived a century earlier, the Founding Fathers would have had a basis for accepting naturalistic origins of life, and they would have been atheists. Most of them were stoutly opposed to the bible, and the teachings of Christianity in particular.

Yes, there were Christian men among the Founders. Just as Congress removed Thomas Jefferson's words that condemned the practice of slavery in the colonies, they also altered his wording regarding equal rights. His original wording is here in blue italics: "All men are created equal and independent. From that equal creation they derive rights inherent and inalienable." Congress changed that phrase, increasing its religious overtones: "All men are created equal. They are endowed by their creator with certain unalienable rights." But we are not governed by the Declaration of Independence-- it is a historical document, not a constitutional one.
If the Christian Right Extremists wish to return this country to its beginnings, so be it... because it was a climate of Freethought. The Founders were students of the European Enlightenment. Half a century after the establishment of the United States, clergymen complained that no president up to that date had been a Christian. In a sermon that was reported in newspapers, Episcopal minister Bird Wilson of Albany, New York, protested in October 1831: "Among all our presidents from Washington downward, not one was a professor of religion, at least not of more than Unitarianism." The attitude of the age was one of enlightened reason, tolerance, and free thought. The Founding Fathers would turn in their graves if the Christian Extremists had their way with this country.

Consider this: IF indeed the members of the First Continental Congress were all bible-believing, "God-fearing" men, would there ever have been a revolution at all?
"For rebellion as is the sin of witchcraft." 1 Samuel, 15:23
Would they have initiated a rebellion if indeed they thought it was equal to witchcraft (a crime punishable by death)? But that's only the tip of the iceberg. The New Testament gives clear instructions to Christians on how to behave when ruled under a monarchy, as were the Founders.

1 Peter 2:13: "For the Lord's sake accept the authority of every human institution, whether of the emperor as supreme, or of governors, as sent by him to punish those who do wrong and to praise those who do right."
Paul wrote in Romans 13:1: "Let every person be subject to the governing authorities; for there is no authority except from God, and those authorities that exist have been instituted by God. Therefore whoever resist authority resists what God has appointed, and those who resist will incur judgment."
The Founders clearly did not heed what was written in the bible. If they were in fact "good" Christians, there would never have been an American Revolution. Compare the above passages with the Declaration of Independence:
"...when a long train of abuses and usurpations... evinces a design to reduce (the people) under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security..." Anyone who can think for themselves can see that the Founders were not Christians.

Our Founding Fathers Were NOT Christians (http://freethought.mbdojo.com/foundingfathers.html)

8182KSKUSH

09-06-2008, 05:07 AM

what scares me about the McCain/Palin ticket being elected (besides their christian/fascist viewpoints) is that, and I'm sorry to say it, McCain doesn't have much time left on the ol' clock, and as the governor of a small town of 6000 people being Palin's only experience

Although that is false. Maybe you could elaborate on Obama's long list of accomplishments/experience/record. I would love to hear it! :D

TheMetal1

09-06-2008, 05:31 AM

Really? So what's up with Bush's approval rating?

It's going to take a lot more than $1200... and handed out a lot more than once to get that approval rating up :jointsmile: What did they try to give out? $600 to a single person household? Hahaha that won't even buy HALF of my prescriptions every month... not to mention a couple zips of something stinky.

Nahh, in all seriousness though... approval should never be purchased. It should be earned.

As for this "tell-all" letter? As potentially damaging as some people may see it... it really is just a personal opinion and shouldn't be jumped on. Now if the information is verified... different story. Some of it is very interesting.

The only other thing that I notice, that is being overlooked, is motive.
- What motive do people in politics have by supporting her and defending her history? Potential career advancement, financial gain, political influence, private interest.
- What motive does this woman have for discrediting one of the most media covered women in the WORLD right now? She is discovered as a liar, career ruined, community friction, publicly slanders her fellow Alaskan who could potentially run the United States.

To me, it seems a bit rediculous for her to engage in such a public discussion while including so many verifiable facts in it. With information so readily available as it is now it should only take about 12-24 hours to verify the information in the letter. BUT... some people are stupid, so I can't rule that she is just a bitter biotch. I'm simply trying to make some sense in this crazy crazy world..... :stoned:

grow1964

09-06-2008, 05:48 AM

Although that is false. Maybe you could elaborate on Obama's long list of accomplishments/experience/record. I would love to hear it! :D

I can help out with that..Here ya go.

.................................................. .........................................

I think that about sums it up. Feel free to add anything I may have missed.

TheMetal1

09-06-2008, 06:09 AM

Let me say that I do not belong to a particular party... and definitely have no idea who I'm voting for. Shit, I don't even know if I'm going to work on Monday :jointsmile: Just kidding... I have school that night too.

I just looked this up for the hell of it. I didn't read through it all, but I think it includes pretty much all that he was involved in.
THOMAS (Library of Congress) (http://thomas.loc.gov/)
- just do a Senator search for his name
I could be way off base as to what people are looking for as far as his experience, political impact, etc. I don't know what we expect out of these candidates. We make it seem like they need to cure cancer before they can be President. I understand they should be doing something while in Government... but daaamn. I know how hard it is to work collectively with other adults to make a decision on ONE thing.

Personally, I feel it is a lot more difficult to work with a bunch of people to make things better for EVERYONE... than it is to be a single head of a decision making body. Everyone has to go through the motions and red tape to get something done in a group... with a CEO type position, "BAM" stamped and approved. Groups have multiple individuals who are all fighting for the interest of their residents. That is the reason we need to have multiple branches of Government. With a sole position of power, the risk of abuse is increased greatly.

So, for the sake of arguing... lol... Explain how being the sole head of a decision making body is more difficult (more valid experience) than a person working in a large group with much more opposition and much greater competition for available resources?

BigWeed

09-06-2008, 06:25 AM

grow1964

09-06-2008, 06:31 AM

I think what many fail to understand is that there is little difference between the 2 parties anymore. In the end it really doesn't matter who gets elected or who has done what. They are all the same. Get into office and promise anything to get there. Once there make as many deals with big business as I can and enrich myself and my family as much as I can without getting caught. When reelection comes up talk about all the great things I did (Doesn't matter if their true, noone checks anyway) Then repeat the cycle.

Now where has this gotten us? Over 10 trillion in debt, 55 trillion in unfunded liabilities with SS, medicare and medicaid and the prescription drug bill. Who's making all the money from this? Health care, military industrial complex, and drug companies.

Oh and after the close of business today Paulson announced the government would be taking over fannie and freddie. Add another 5 Trillion to the taxpayers.

Just a s a point of reference, the GDP for the US is around 12 trillion. That's in a good year. 71% of the US economy is consumer spending. Consumers are pretty much broke and the credit they used to have access to is gone (Their homes)

Of that GDP number aprox 3 trillion is collected in taxes. So we have 70 Trillion in debts and 3 trillion a year to pay them off. Oh and of that 3 trillion a year 600 billion is used for the military. So if the government did nothing else and there was no interest on that debt then it would take them maybe 30 years to pay that off. Unfortunately there are a lot of other needs and uses for that money every year.

Bottom line is there is only one way out other than telling the rest of the world we default. Bernake will have to print money and when he does look out because inflation will ramp up and ramp up fast. Make sure you have some gold and silver. Buy some put it away and forget about it until you need it. Its not an investment, only protection from inflation and quite possibly hyperinflation.

So, this is why it doesn't matter which party is in office. They will both be managing the same problem. You can also look back into past years and past problems and noone can agree who was to blame. Thats the beauty of Washington. There is no accountability.

flyingimam

09-06-2008, 07:44 AM

to me its like this:

Obama has not held any major executive roles neither has biden, obama does not have warmongering or military track.

McCain been into war n so did his father and grand father, n has picked some1 with executive exp for VP who to me is a hyporcite evangelist extremist.

i still can understand how will experience matter, when u have the same old crappy ideas behind it! McCain for the fact has been on Bush's side almost all the time!

for the record
Bush was governor of TX for a good while and it took him fucking forever on live tv just to react to the news of 9/11. did i mention his military record too?
George W. Bush military service controversy - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_W._Bush_military_service_controversy)

and then how did he react when he did react?
8 years later, Saddam is dead, hundreds of thousands of civilians are dead and more injured, along with US casualties.

and yet, the original supposed masterminds or leaders of those who carried out the attacks are on the loose without much being done about it!

also, half of our bill of rights, core of the whole idea of freedom and democracy [research roots of the word, has to do with people and their will] is literally useless and our rights are gone, just by his reaction and the republican dominated congress, full of experienced people like McCain.

oh, more to brag about: his father was president as well, a president who did indeed go to war.

looking back now, u think Bush was qualified for the job based on his experience? I think not!

and John Kerry at least was in Vietnam doin somethin, how come that didnt count as experience to handle the position of commander in chief? its better than a national guard pilot who mysteriously went missing when the time of real service came!

as i have said before, all this is just a show for the unwashed masses, simpletons who will buy into whatever populist ideas they are given by sources they like. experience argument is just 1 example

Roosevelt is among the top 4 favorite US presidents based on approval ratings [ironically with GW leading both the least favorable and most favorable list]

and he barely had any executive experience except for a short while in navy
plus only 2 terms as a governor of New York after his failed VP bid in 1920.

yet his "policies and his thinking and ideas" made the major contribution to get us through the worst times of modern american history from a real messed up situation in depression to super power position!

Experience will "not matter much" when u look for "major difference and new ways" in the direction of the country.
at least not in the case of these 2 candidates, forget VPs!

unless u wanna tell me a president must have been into a war or military to be qualified for the job... which then brings on many more major questions to my mind about the essence of our system!

8182KSKUSH

09-06-2008, 08:01 AM

dragonrider

09-06-2008, 08:21 AM

Kush, I'm going to clean up this list of Palin accomplishments you posted since you seem to be counting things that are not actual accomplishments, and counting some twice.

1. governor of the great state of Alaska --- For 20 months. Notice that everyone counts this in months, like the age of a baby, because it is such a short amount of time. Calling it 2 years is exaggerating, but calling it a year and a half isn't giving her credit for the last 2 months. So you have to be really precise and call it 20 months. At the end of the year she will have 4 more montsh, and will be 20 percent more experienced, and it will be a lot simpler just to say 2 years. That'll be great. I can't wait for that 2 year mark.

2. mayor of my hometown --- of 5,000? or 7,000? I went to college in a town almost this small once. It was actually about 8,000 residents but it would swell to twice as big when the students came to town. There were actually more students enrolled in that tiny university than the enitre population of Wassila. Neato. I used to go to City Council meetings to watch the mayor in action and report on it for the paper. It was real presidential stuff, like where to put stop signs. There were a lot of code variance applications. They voted on garbage rates. It was a part time job and they met almost twice a month. It's so exciting to think I was rubbing elbows with people who were only 20 months away from being qualified to lead the most powerful nation on earth!

3. actual responsibilities --- Kush, I don't think you can count "actual responsibilities" as an accomplishemnt. It just seems kind of vague.

4. I took on the old politics as usual in Juneau ... when I stood up to the special interests, the lobbyists, big oil companies, and the good ol' boys network. --- Kush, this one seems kind of vague too. I don't think you can count this one as an accomplishment either.

5. I came to office promising major ethics reform, to end the culture of self-dealing. And today, that ethics reform is the law --- This legislation was already before the legislature before she even started her campaign, so I don't think she gets to keep this one.

6. by request if possible and by veto if necessary --- true, she has vetoed.

7. Our state budget is under control. We have a surplus. --- This one is mixed in my mind. I mean Alaska has so much money from oil and pipeline revenues that they have been giving away about $1000 or more free cash money to residents every year since the early '80's. I don't think they even have income tax or property tax. They are swiming in oil cash. How hard can it be to balance a budget like that? Have they EVER had a deficit? I understand the most challenging political issue in Alaska is how to carve up the MASSIVE surplus that they get from oil revenues and federal spending. That'll come in real handy in Washington.

8. And I have protected the taxpayers by vetoing wasteful spending: nearly half a billion dollars in vetoes. --- Kush, you don't get to count vetos twice.

9. I suspended the state fuel tax, --- I guess so. I wasn't able to check this.

10. and championed reform to end the abuses of earmark spending by Congress. --- Well, this is one of those "championed" or "worked on" kinds of accomplishments you ridicule Obama for, but you can keep it.

11. I told the Congress "thanks, but no thanks," for that Bridge to Nowhere. --- This is one of those John Kerry "I was before it, before I was against it" deals. She was for the Bridge to Nowhere during her campaign, but after the shitstorm, she decided she was against it. So she cancelled the bridge, but kept the $300,000,000. So now it's no longer a Bridge to Nowhere, it's just Money for Nothing. Maybe she can use that Federal $300,000,000 to give an extra $500 to each Alaskan next year with the oil revenue check. Mmmmmmm..... Pork...

12. And despite fierce opposition from oil company lobbyists, who kind of liked things the way they were, we broke their monopoly on power and resources.
As governor, I insisted on competition and basic fairness to end their control of our state and return it to the people. --- Again, I'm not sure what this means, but you can keep it, whatever it is.

13. I fought to bring about the largest private-sector infrastructure project in North American history. And when that deal was struck, we began a nearly forty billion dollar natural gas pipeline to help lead America to energy independence. --- This is sort of a half truth exaggeration. The project is approved. They haven't actually "began" it though. It won't "begin" for years, if ever. It won't be done until at least 2018.

14. we Americans need to produce more of our own oil and gas.
And take it from a gal who knows the North Slope of Alaska: we've got lots of both. --- This is not an accomplishment. This is more of a slogan.

Ok, here's the revised list:

1. governor of the great state of Alaska, for the last 20 months.

2. mayor of my hometown of between 5,000 and 7,000, depending on who you ask.

3. Has used the veto.

4. Our state budget is under control. We have a surplus. As always.

5. I suspended the state fuel tax. Seeing as we have a $5 billion dollar surplus from the new oil tax I approved, it seemed like the decent thing to do.

6. and championed reform to end the abuses of earmark spending by Congress.

7. I told the Congress "thanks, but no thanks," for that Bridge to Nowhere that I was for, before I was against it. But I kept the $300,000,000 earmark, even though it was no longer "earmarked" for anything.

8. And despite fierce opposition from oil company lobbyists, who kind of liked things the way they were, we broke their monopoly on power and resources.
As governor, I insisted on competition and basic fairness to end their control of our state and return it to the people.

9. I fought to bring about the largest private-sector infrastructure project in North American history. The forty billion dollar natural gas pipeline is approved. Once it begins, it may be done by 2018.

There's still a few good ones in there, along with the not so good ones. It doesn't really matter though. I don't think this thing is going to come down to experience.

8182KSKUSH

09-06-2008, 08:30 AM

Thanks,
It wasn't exclusively a list of accomplishments, but also points of experience as well, keep in mind too, it was as per her acceptance speech.
I like it though, and still like seeing Obama's list of accomplishments stacked up with it, either list will put his to shame.:jointsmile:

flyingimam

09-06-2008, 08:45 AM

:S2::S2::angry3::angry3::angry3::S2::S2::S2:

I believe you may have missed the point entirely.
The question of experience with regard to Palin as VP was being raised by DEMOCRATS!!!! DEMOCRATS!!!!!

I merely answered the question. Now DEMOCRATS, don't want to talk about experience anymore. How funny is that?

I'm not a democrat. I THINK independently and don't go in defense of any1 just cuz i've been on their side for 10 or 20 or 50 years, I speak what i think is the truth. I criticize where I think its needed and I applause where its deserved!

BTW, McCain has executive experience as well, while he was in the military.

this is not disputed.

my point is: NOW, EXPERIENCE really does not matter as much as issues and the way we think our country should head into. so accomplishments and records are really not of much importance if they are part of what has gone wrong!

texas grass

09-06-2008, 01:10 PM

11. I told the Congress "thanks, but no thanks," for that Bridge to Nowhere. --- This is one of those John Kerry "I was before it, before I was against it" deals. She was for the Bridge to Nowhere during her campaign, but after the shitstorm, she decided she was against it. So she cancelled the bridge, but kept the $300,000,000. So now it's no longer a Bridge to Nowhere, it's just Money for Nothing. Maybe she can use that Federal $300,000,000 to give an extra $500 to each Alaskan next year with the oil revenue check. Mmmmmmm..... Pork...

so she stole 300m from the federal government and nothing happened. shes a criminal that cant be trusted.

stealing 300m is a criminal act. plain and simple

McDanger

09-06-2008, 01:35 PM

K she can lie in a speach, i guess that is a qualification.
And you can lie in a post. You are now a highly qualified Obama (athletic)supporter.:D

daihashi

09-06-2008, 02:00 PM

so she stole 300m from the federal government and nothing happened. shes a criminal that cant be trusted.

stealing 300m is a criminal act. plain and simple

To steal it the money would've had to of gone back into her own pocket. Which I don't believe it would otherwise she'd probably be indicted with Ted Stevens.

In either case I do believe this can hurt her and the McCain campaign. McCain has always opposed earmarks and is one of the main things he campaigns on. Now we have Palin who claims to be a reformer but has this earmark money.

I'm not sure what happened. Maybe the money was already dumped into the bridge/roads that never got finished? Maybe it just went back int Alaska's revenue? I really don't know, but alaska has a nice surplus and I agree that the money should be given back to the federal government, I don't agree that she performed a criminal act.

TheMetal1

09-06-2008, 02:27 PM

Yeah... I am definitely trying to stay objective here and not condemn anyone this early. Information is literally flooding the media and it is difficult to wade through the bullshit spin fest.

While the definition of theft or criminal act may not apply to this money situation... would that make it just? This is IF the information regarding the 300,000,000 is true. If I were to ask for funds from an outside source... and then use those funds for anything other than the original intended purpose... I would hope that someone would hold me accountable. It seems that people want to talk about the growing debt our country is putting on itself... but doesn't want to play hardball with the people spending the money. It's plain logic. You ask for something for a specific purpose... you abandon that original purpose... you return the money because it wasn't approved for ANYTHING other than that original purpose. Whether or not the State needed it doesn't matter. Although, with their surplus it should be obvious that it could have been better utilized elsewhere. Government money is distributed for specific reasons. While it may technically NOT be criminal in the sense that it was intentionally misused or physically stolen from someone... it is still highly irresponsible.

Example: You beg your little old grandmother for $200 to buy textbooks for next semester... you drop out of school and use the money to buy an Xbox 360 :wtf: Is it criminal? Maybe... maybe not. Is it right?

All of this relies on the information being accurate :jointsmile: Just throwing stuff out there.

This race is so intense. What an incredible time to be a young American. This time period is going to have some long chapters in the history books of the future.

thcbongman

09-08-2008, 01:25 AM

It's not that.. it's that by definition a Theory is something that is not proven as true. So regardless of your argument.. any scientific theory is still a theory and not fact.

You can have all the models in the world but it doesn't make you right unless you can prove it.

Science and creationism are in the same boat essentially no matter how you roll the dice. Science is just in the better position to win this fight, and probably by a landslide at that. :hippy:

Exactly. Theories are not absolutes. At anytime it could be debunked. Big bang theory could be 100% wrong, but at this current time it's the best explanation we have until further answers are sought. One time, the conventional theory was the earth was flat. But the basis of that was from what we saw at the present time, conventional wisdom. It was based on what people saw. There were no further avenues at the time to prove otherwise. Then of course, it became fact that the world was round and it was debunked.

The difference though between theories like the big bang, and creationism is there's far more basis for it. For example, can we prove that Moses was alive? Did he leave behind some possessions that could be carbon-dated. The process of the scientific method in creationism is lacking.