Honest queries for the Palin supporters of JU.

Personally, she scares the hell out of me - and most of the genuinely moderate people I've discussed it with.

I'm no Obama fan and haven't been for months now, but I find Palin's political viewpoints much more virulent, contradictory, and anti-American than anything I've heard out of BO's mouth.

Scares the hell out of me, I say.

Please provide a Palin political viewpoint that is much more virulent, contradictory, and anti-American than leaving birthed babies to die in a hospital.

I'm one who has been excited about her, but I'm also hoping the honeymoon ends soon so we can really get a look at the candidate herself.  What I'm really watching for is how she handles the firestorm.  Hillary didn't handle it well, and in my opinion, neither has Obama.  McCain has taken it all in stride, but then again, he's been there before, taking it from both sides. If she can take it better than Hillary and Obama, then she earns my vote.

What I find interesting about Obama fans is, most of us who don't support him are willing to give him credit where credit is due.   I haven't heard or read much positive about McCain or Palin from Obama fans... even among those who thought McCain was great before he became the Republican nominee.

I don't know much about Palin since I am still a student of politics. I do my best to learn as much as I can as I go but am not able to reply at the higher standards of peopl like LW, Parated and Draginol. Still I did some research on Palin and, unless this website is all screwed up (just one of a few I saw), I see very little that would make me not like her as a good candidate for VP. So why exectly "she scares the hell out of" you?

Jythier made an even more interesting question.

Here' sthe link to the site BTW Link

Of course, SanCho, I don't think you're for Obama.  I just noted that you made that statement and wanted to see what you were talking about.  Aren't you for Nader?

Eh...I don't like her.

The ones I disagree with the most:

Civil Rights:

• Ok to deny benefits to homosexual couples. (Aug 2006)
• No spousal benefits for same-sex couples. (Jul 2006)

Education:

• Teach creationism alongside evolution in schools. (Aug 2008)
• Supports teaching intelligent design in public schools. (Aug 2008)
• Faith-based materials ok in homeschooling. (Nov 2006)

Energy and Oil

• Global warming affects Alaska, but is not man-made. (Aug 2008)
• Unlock ANWR; we're ready, willing and able to contribute. (Jun 2008)
• Bush is right: drill ANWR & develop our own supplies. (Apr 2008)
• Get ANWR open. (Nov 2006)

Environment

• Opposed protections for salmon from mining contamination. (Aug 2008)
• Sue US government to stop listing polar bear as endangered. (Aug 2008)
• We must encourage timber, mining, drilling, & fishing. (Jan 2008)
• Wolf predator control is important for subsistence hunters. (Sep 2007)
• Feds shouldn't list beluga whales as endangered. (Aug 2007)

Families and Children

• Opposes explicit sex-education programs. (Jul 2006)

There are others that I don't agree with, but those are the top ones.

~Zoo

Pretty good Zoo. Like I said, I see very little from my point of view that I don't like. There are a few but not too many. Besides, if I gonna get down to details I may not be able to vote for anyone since I am sure to find something I won't agree wth with any of them.

Actually, she said she supported the discussion of creationism if it came up in class (from students, as is inevitable from my experiences as a student), but stressed she wasn't going so far as to suggest it should be added to the curiculum.

Given that some of the greatest dangers in the world at the moment come from religion, don't you support spreading an understanding of them? I voluntarily learned about Jesus and his friends, and Mohammed and his wives, and I understand what makes many Muslims tick, now. I can get over the initial racial slurs I face when I meet Muslims, and they often become friendly after half an hour. I know the difference between the different Christianity's too. With my knowledge of Christianity, Islam, and Judaism I have been able to flatly deny many aspects of all of them. That's better than just being brainwashed 'religion = bad.'

I'm the opposite of Zoo, as we have both known for a while.  So it makes sense for him to not like her while I do like her.  Although I don't know anything about polar bears and endangeredness, it would make sense for the governor of a state that actually has them to not want them protected as they rip people to shreds.

Of course, it doesn't matter that she doesn't want to give rights to the homosexuals, because they're going to get them anyway.  Then they're going to take away the rights of Christians to believe it's a sin.

What is wrong with leaving it up to businesses to decide what benefits to offer?  Many companies have chosen to offer benefits to same sex couples, others haven't... as it should be.

What is wrong with leaving the choice up to the local school boards... where it belongs?

Do you really think the government should ban faith based materials in homeschooling?

1: Isn't that the whole argument between man caused global warming and nature based global warming?

2: If Alaska is ready, willing and able, why not?

3: Isn't energy independance important?

1: I can see both points on that one.

2: If the polar bear population is higher now than in the 70s, how is it endangered? (factcheck.com)

3: What is wrong with encouraging the use of our own resources instead of importing the same resources?

Oh yes, if oral sex, masturbation and S&M aren't taught in schools our society will just die on the vine. ;~D

~~~~

It's kind of ironic, Democrats say that we should keep jobs here at home and we should "buy American", but then work against any opportunities to produce anything here in the USA.  Democrats say they are for "choice" but then don't want choices offered in school curriculum or job benefits.

Like others have said, so far, on issues alone, Palin looks pretty good.

 *sigh* Crap...now I got myself in politics.

I was just copying and pasting from that link I quoted.  I'm all for the discussion(even though it is horribly flawed in every scientific way imaginable, but hey I'm a nice guy) but I strongly oppose the teaching of it as a valid theory.

I do indeed support understanding, but not teaching of them in a public school.  There's a difference between learning about a religion and being instructed in it.  I learned about Christianity, Judaism, Native American religions, and New Age in one of my classes...I was not taught why and how to perform certain rituals, which one is 'right',  or what have you, but the way they worked and the things they believed.  I believe religious instruction should be separate from other forms of education.  I don't want Jesus in my calculus in other words.

Yeah...but problem bears can be dealt with accordingly.  I'm not saying have polar bears eat people and then just shoo them away afterwards.

Depends on if the businesses are private or not.  Private business may do as they like, even if they are jerks about it.  I just don't like the idea of having "NO GAYS" in windows like "NO COLOREDS" signs in the good ol' days of racism.

Because some of the school boards are obviously stupid...like in Kansas.  Creationism/intelligent design was not, is not, nor will ever be a valid scientific theory and has no real place in schools aside from perhaps one day to talk about why it sucks as science.

What exactly are "faith based materials in homeschooling?"  I mean is it "God and the ABC's?"  Or does it promote more religious based skews on actual education?  Like I said, I don't think education should be mixed with faith and religion.  If you want to learn about religion, then go at it.  It's all good.  I just don't see how combining the two helps in any way whatsoever...and I know that creationism is in there somewhere.  It's a huge pet peeve of mine if you couldn't tell already.  I just don't want parents undermining a good education with crap about how the world is only 6,000 years old and all the fallacies that come with it.  If you want to believe that, go ahead...but don't ever teach it as fact.

I've been learning a bit about global warming in my geography class.  Turns out that global warming can be predicted and replicated by models similar to those that predict other weather phenomenon. (Daily weather, hurricane paths, stuff like that).  Well, when you input environmental data you don't get the results we see today.  If you add human contributions to that model...guess what?  Model reflects reality.  I'm growing fairly convinced that human interaction has a significant effect.

A bit of my environmental side coming out, I suppose.  I don't think we should screw up ANWR, plain and simple.

I doubt drilling in Alaska will magically solve our problems.  It will only delay the inevitable while screwing up Alaska's environment.

You can read this Wikipedia section if you like, at least they cite sources.  It is widely believed that there's trouble brewing for our polar bear friends. There's only 22,000-25,000 to begin with...so if anything drastic happens then they're gone forever before we can do a thing if we don't think ahead.

Using our own resources is great...but people need to take into account conservation and limits onto what can be harvested.  Do some tree replanting, limit the number of fish you catch, for the love of God don't strip mine, and I've already covered oil drilling...although I'd like to add that we should drill what we have instead of poking around in protected areas and offshore crap.

With a conservative and the word 'explicit' I think they're leaning more towards advocating abstinence only education...which obviously didn't work for her daughter.  I just have the crazy idea that in a sex ed class you should learn about sex and how to perform it safely if you're going to do it. 

Ugh...politics.  I should stop having so many opinions.

~Zoo

SanCho- thanks for posting this. In short, and falling in lockstep with the consensus on this site, please join me in reciting the following:

Palin is flawless, and any and all criticism is from those "hate america firster-er's" crowd just trying to smear her. Shame on them. Thankfully, once God appoints the next president he'll do away with all those types through either state funded private prisons (capitalist version of gulag) or the apocalypse. Can't go wrong!

Obama, however has many flaws which we must examine in detail. He is apparently racist (I've heard against both his own race and others) has a fetish for baby killing, knows nothing, lies about everything, wants to take ALL your money AND to top it all off he is really just another terrorist once you get right down to it.

Zoo-

welcome to hell! haahahahaha!!!!

This thread is hilarious, especially the 'Honest' in the title.  Dripping with sanctimony, the way I like 'em.  Keep it up!

Hey Artysim, that was kinda funny. I love jokes that allow for easy replacement of names to keep the joke going, such as:

replace  Palin with Obama and Obama with Palin  . Now that's comedy right there.

I didn't think it was funny, Charles.

"you've all been kissing her hindparts so much I'm not sure you have much to share other than the feces you've allowed her to deposit in your waiting, open mouths."

WTF's up with the quote button? Anyway...yuck! That was gross SC! But I gotta admit...eh, never mind.

Glad to have been part of pulling you in! Muahahaha!!

If there were signs like that, I would be marching along side you against it.  But it isn't up to the city, county, state or federal government to dictate to businesses what benefits they must or must not offer employees.

For the record though, in states where same sex marriages are recognized, I do think it would be discrimination to offer benefits for traditional spouses but not for same sex spouses.

Our Constitution and system of government is based on government situations being handled by the smallest jurisdiction possible, with oversight by the next highest jurisdiction.  However, people just can't stand it when other communities do things differently than their own.  It's like everywhere has to be exactly the same as everywhere else for some reason.

For example, I think San Francisco does things about as "obviously stupid" as it gets.  But that is the way the people of San Francisco want to do things, so, unless they are violating the state and/or US Constitutions, so be it.

If the people of a community in Kansas think that teaching ID is best for their community, then they should be able to do it, as long as the schools meet the minimum standards set by the state. 

Oh, so not only do you want to tell other school districts what they can and can't teach to students, you want to dictate that to parents too?  Do you respect any freedom at all when it comes to teaching kids?

And thousands of scientists disagree with you.  The whole "consensus" thing is a lie.

Oh yes, let's not mess up all those trees and undergrowth at ANWR. ;'~D

Who said anything about "magically solving our problems"?  Right now, oil is the lifeblood of our society.  It is moronic to have our president go over to other countries begging them to increase oil production when our government refuses to allow increased production here in the US.

So we're supposed to make billion dollar decisions on what "might" happen?

But it's ok to use the resources of other nations, no matter what it does to the environment?

Thanks for the bit of stereotyping here.  And the personal attack on Bristol.  Apparently to you all kids follow their parents advice all the time.  But than again, you don't want parents teaching their kids anything that you don't approve of anyway, so why don't we just let the government raise our kids for us...

Zoologist for Secretary of the Department of Childraising.  ;~D

You could use Ayn Rand's book Anthem as your guide.

Can you be specific?

You gotta check Drudge today -

Made my morning.

But it's not science, it's thinly disguised religion.  That's my issue, Ted.

Umm...that's not how I would put it.  Some things need to be taught(math, reading, science), some things can be taught(whatever seems fun), and other things shouldn't be taught(religion) as part of a school curriculum.

Yes, I do.  That's why I'm against those damn state proficiency exams.  Teaching should be done in a way that engages the learner, not teaching to an arbitrary standard.  I just don't think religion should be a part of that seeing as how it has absolutely nothing to do with schooling.  If you want to have Jesus class in between math and social studies, then by all means go for it.  However, God is completely and utterly superfluous when it comes to learning math, science, English, reading...well, everything academic really(unless you're taking a religion class).

There's hardly ever a "consensus" with anything.  Scientists are notoriously conservative(with ideas, not politically)...the scientific community is very abrasive to new findings until it is thoroughly peer reviewed.  Even then there are those people who don't believe a lick of it.  Personally, I'm growing rather convinced...but it's always up for debate.

And of all the places we have, first we should open up Alaska?  There's a lot of oil sitting in the ground in places oil companies already own...but there seems to be some rush to rip open ANWR...why is that?  I say drain what you have before opening up a wildlife refuge.

There's a billion dollar polar bear industry?  They must be delicious.

No, other nations should also do their best for conservation.  I totally support most conservation efforts.  Screwing up the environment anywhere pisses me off...goes along with my area of study.  However, I do understand the need for harvesting of certain animals and natural resources- it's unavoidable.  Care must be taken when doing so.  Chop down too many trees or catch too many fish and they'll end up gone...and then not only will the environment suffer, but people will too.

Stereotyping? Yeah, a bit...but I'm not wrong.  Admittedly I was a bit of an ass taking a dig, but hey I don't have to be nice all the time. 

No, kids don't follow their parent's advice all the time...but you'd think the kid would think about a condom or the pill or something.  I'm on a college campus where phenomenal amounts of sex are had and yet I don't see that many pregnancies(I think 2 in the 2 years I've been here).  I'm sure a little education makes a difference...just saying, "Don't do it." Isn't helping much.

As for teaching what I don't approve of?  Go ahead, parents of the world, teach your kids anything you want...but when it comes to formal education there are certain things that must be addressed and certain things that have no place in the classroom- when homeschooling that classroom still exists in the home.  There's nothing that I could possibly not approve of in a school environment...all of it is necessary.  I just don't take kindly to the urge for some school boards to crack open the Bible and teach Genesis as some crazy science.  Beliefs being taught in schools is the only thing that I don't approve of.  By all means discuss beliefs and different perspectives, I think that's extremely important in learning about other people...but teaching particular beliefs...no, not cool.

Oh, I don't do childrearing...but I can teach them about stuff pretty well.  

~Zoo

Except for there are scientists who don't believe in God who accept ID and reject the idea that it has anything to do with religion.

But that isn't the point.  The point is that community standards should be respected unless it breaks state or US Constitutions.  Otherwise we tip the balance of power to the state and federal governments, which means a loss of personal freedom.

We have already given too much by insisting the President and Congress micromanage the states and cities.

Maybe I misunderstood you before.  Are you saying that homeschoolers shouldn't include any kind of religious instruction to their own kids?  Or are you saying that they have the right to teach anything they want, but there needs to be a minimum standard that includes math, reading, science... etc.?

If you are saying the later, then we agree here.

And "man caused" global warming is no different.  There is real "concensus" among scientists about it, there are only those who accept it and those who don't, but many who accept it as fact want the others to shut up.  Now, I don't know how much of that is more from politicians and within the politics of science (which is rampant in peer reviews, but you know that much more than I), but it is far from generally accepted.

If the scientific jury is still out, shouldn't both sides be taught, if it's taught at all?

That's a pig in a poke argument from the Congressional Democrats who have seen the reports and know that those parcels have already been surveyed and found to be either dry or not economically feasible to squeeze whatever oil is left in them.  They might as well be telling the oil companies, "you can drill all you want, as long as you drill where there isn't any oil".

The arguments against drilling in ANWR were all used against building the Alaskan Pipeline, and not a single one actually occured.

No problem, that's why I resonded in kind.  We all take our digs at times. ;~)

It's all just conversation and discussion here, right? ;~D

But there's no evidence for design...none. It's like teaching spontaneous generation or something.  Some off the wall hypothesis should not be treated seriously.  If anything, let it be an example of something that doesn't work.  I like my science with at least a decent theory holding it up.  In my opinion we don't need to teach kids what I like to call "crap."

I lean towards the latter, yes.  Parents are often involved in teaching religion to their children, I wouldn't deny them their right to do that. 

It's just that if you teach math   1 sinner + 2 sinners = How many years of eternal damnation?    is not how I'd like to see children learning.

Okay, here's what I understand from global warming as of right now.  Fact: the earth is warming.  The debate is about whether human activity has caused it...which I'm thinking is rather plausible. Though it hasn't been "proven" as science doesn't really do that.  Models have predicted warming when human contribution has been added to the data set, without the human part it doesn't predict warming.  That's damning evidence, in my book...although I don't have the sources to point you to as I've only really discussed it in the classroom....perhaps if I stumble across it I'll make an article or something.

As for political interference...they've been keeping the whole global warming thing on the down low for awhile now.  In fact, I just wrote an essay on politics and science.  Check out this website to learn more about that.(Here's an A to Z list of some articles about political interference...it gives examples of stuff that happened.)

Well, I like my wildlife refuges...so bleh!  If they could drill without screwing everything up...then that wouldn't be a problem...but wherever industry touches, the environment takes a hit.  I guess in today's world it sucks to care more about the environment than glorious black sludge from the ground. Someone's going to drink Alaska's milkshake.

Oh, aye.  That it is.

~Zoo

I thought the earth was cooling again, Zoo?

True, in the last 100 years the temperature of the earth increased a degree, which we have all been told is majorly significant, and I have no reason to doubt that.   On the other hand, last winter the earth's temperature decreased by about 0.75 degrees, but we're told that isn't significant at all?   Also, none of the "models" seemed to have seen that coming.

Also, it may be warmer were you are, but here in Wisconsin, our temperatures over the last 12 months have been normal month by month, they haven't strayed more than 5F up or down from normal all year.  Which is kind of interesting because we also had one of the heaviest snowfalls on record.

So, is it cooling, warming or both?  Or do the actual facts really matter since Global Climate Change is all things to all people?

Hmm, well would you look at that.  Wonder why that happened.  I know large volcanic eruptions can cool the earth in about a year...but I don't recall hearing about any of them happening.

Anyway, a 12 month trend compared to a 100 year trend is fairly insignificant, unless it continues...then we might have a problem.  I don't deny that there's still stuff up in the air(heh, pun) about climate science and unfortunately I'm a bit lacking in knowing how the whole thing works.

Well, over time it seems to be warming.  Those last 12 months you mentioned seem to be showing a dip in that trend...whether that's indicative of a new trend or merely an anomaly in this one, I cannot say one way or the other.

Oh, actual facts matter...to the people studying it anyway...but when politics gets involved...well, you know what happens with some people and their views....crazy one way or the other.

~Zoo