WWTBAM Bored

• That she thinks the war in Iraq is "God's task." She's even admitted she hasn't thought about the war much—just last year she was quoted saying, "I've been so focused on state government, I haven't really focused much on the war in Iraq."

• That she actively sought the support of the fringe Alaska Independence Party. Six months ago, Palin told members of the group—who advocate for a vote on secession from the union—to "keep up the good work" and "wished the party luck on what she called its 'inspiring convention.'"

• That she thinks creationism should be taught in public schools.

• That she doesn't believe that humans contribute to global warming. Speaking about climate change, she said, "I'm not one though who would attribute it to being manmade."

• That she has close ties to Big Oil. Her inauguration was even sponsored by BP.

• Thats she is extremely anti-choice. She doesn't even support abortion in the case of rape or incest.

• That she opposes comprehensive sex-ed in public schools. She's said she will only support abstinence-only approaches.

• That as mayor, she tried to ban books from the library. Palin asked the library how she might go about banning books because some had inappropriate language in them—shocking the librarian, Mary Ellen Baker. According to Time, "news reports from the time show that Palin had threatened to fire Baker for not giving "full support" to the mayor."

I don't care how good a mother she is, I'm not voting for any ticket with her on it.

Bob Juch wrote: I don't care how good a mother she is, I'm not voting for any ticket with her on it.

So what? You wouldn't vote for McCain no matter who he put on the ticket.

Thousandaire wrote:

Bob Juch wrote: I don't care how good a mother she is, I'm not voting for any ticket with her on it.

So what? You wouldn't vote for McCain no matter who he put on the ticket.

Right.

Bob Juch wrote:• That she thinks creationism should be taught in public schools.

We had this discussion in another thread, and that's not quite what she said. Her initial response to a question during a gubernatorial debate was something like "Teach both", meaning both evolution and creationism, with an implication that they should be taught together in science classes. Her clarification statements the next day said that she didn't intend to force creationism into the curriculum and would not press the issue if elected. The state's Republican platform, though, does have such a plank advocating the dual instruction.

My objection in that thread was teaching both as science and as equally valid theories. Doing so misrepresents both science and the correct use of the term "theory" in it.

Bob Juch wrote:• That she thinks the war in Iraq is "God's task." She's even admitted she hasn't thought about the war much—just last year she was quoted saying, "I've been so focused on state government, I haven't really focused much on the war in Iraq."

• That she actively sought the support of the fringe Alaska Independence Party. Six months ago, Palin told members of the group—who advocate for a vote on secession from the union—to "keep up the good work" and "wished the party luck on what she called its 'inspiring convention.'"

• That she thinks creationism should be taught in public schools.

• That she doesn't believe that humans contribute to global warming. Speaking about climate change, she said, "I'm not one though who would attribute it to being manmade."

• That she has close ties to Big Oil. Her inauguration was even sponsored by BP.

• Thats she is extremely anti-choice. She doesn't even support abortion in the case of rape or incest.

• That she opposes comprehensive sex-ed in public schools. She's said she will only support abstinence-only approaches.

• That as mayor, she tried to ban books from the library. Palin asked the library how she might go about banning books because some had inappropriate language in them—shocking the librarian, Mary Ellen Baker. According to Time, "news reports from the time show that Palin had threatened to fire Baker for not giving "full support" to the mayor."

I don't care how good a mother she is, I'm not voting for any ticket with her on it.

There's been a lot of charges thrown out there by the media and the left wing blogs about what Palin has or hasn't done and what she does or doesn't believe. Some of them may be true; some may be partially true; some are complete distortions. None of them have offered her or McCain an opportunity for comment or rebuttal.

This is what passes for journalism nowadays, a rush to dig up any juicy or salacious tidbits about a candidate and get them into print as quickly as possible without any attempt to verify them, do followup or background research or put them into context. Almost none of the people doing this "investigation" have actually been to Alaska to check these things out, relying instead on web sites of varying amounts of reliability.

And, yes, the right wingers do the same thing, trying to throw a lot of things out there without verifying them either. Two wrongs don't make a right; they don't educate people about Palin; and they don't make for responsible research or journalism.

Besides being irresponsible, a barrage of shotgun charges like this against Palin is poor tactics. All she has to do is to rebut one or two of them and then claim the press and the left are engaging in a witch hunt at her expense.

Rabid Obama supporters don't need any additional reasons to vote against her and this type of attack will be counterproductive with other voters in the long run.

silverscreenselect wrote:

Bob Juch wrote:• That she thinks the war in Iraq is "God's task." She's even admitted she hasn't thought about the war much—just last year she was quoted saying, "I've been so focused on state government, I haven't really focused much on the war in Iraq."

• That she actively sought the support of the fringe Alaska Independence Party. Six months ago, Palin told members of the group—who advocate for a vote on secession from the union—to "keep up the good work" and "wished the party luck on what she called its 'inspiring convention.'"

• That she thinks creationism should be taught in public schools.

• That she doesn't believe that humans contribute to global warming. Speaking about climate change, she said, "I'm not one though who would attribute it to being manmade."

• That she has close ties to Big Oil. Her inauguration was even sponsored by BP.

• Thats she is extremely anti-choice. She doesn't even support abortion in the case of rape or incest.

• That she opposes comprehensive sex-ed in public schools. She's said she will only support abstinence-only approaches.

• That as mayor, she tried to ban books from the library. Palin asked the library how she might go about banning books because some had inappropriate language in them—shocking the librarian, Mary Ellen Baker. According to Time, "news reports from the time show that Palin had threatened to fire Baker for not giving "full support" to the mayor."

I don't care how good a mother she is, I'm not voting for any ticket with her on it.

There's been a lot of charges thrown out there by the media and the left wing blogs about what Palin has or hasn't done and what she does or doesn't believe. Some of them may be true; some may be partially true; some are complete distortions. None of them have offered her or McCain an opportunity for comment or rebuttal.

This is what passes for journalism nowadays, a rush to dig up any juicy or salacious tidbits about a candidate and get them into print as quickly as possible without any attempt to verify them, do followup or background research or put them into context. Almost none of the people doing this "investigation" have actually been to Alaska to check these things out, relying instead on web sites of varying amounts of reliability.

And, yes, the right wingers do the same thing, trying to throw a lot of things out there without verifying them either. Two wrongs don't make a right; they don't educate people about Palin; and they don't make for responsible research or journalism.

Besides being irresponsible, a barrage of shotgun charges like this against Palin is poor tactics. All she has to do is to rebut one or two of them and then claim the press and the left are engaging in a witch hunt at her expense.

Rabid Obama supporters don't need any additional reasons to vote against her and this type of attack will be counterproductive with other voters in the long run.

There is solid proof of what I said. No rumor mill involved.

I did not say she said creationism should be taught exclusive of evolution.

Bob Juch wrote: There is solid proof of what I said. No rumor mill involved.

I did not say she said creationism should be taught exclusive of evolution.

Since I don't have time to go through every single point, I chose one at random, the book banning one. Your source is apparently this quote from Time Magazine, attributed to the man Palin defeated for mayor of Wasilla, certainly an unbiased source of information:

(Former Maryor) Stein says that as mayor, Palin continued to inject religious beliefs into her policy at times. "She asked the library how she could go about banning books," he says, because some voters thought they had inappropriate language in them. "The librarian was aghast." The librarian, Mary Ellen Baker, couldn't be reached for comment, but news reports from the time show that Palin had threatened to fire her for not giving "full support" to the mayor.

Now here is the article I found from the Anchorage Daily News today.

http://www.adn.com/sarah-palin/story/515512.html

This isn't the best way for Palin to have handled the situation, but at the time she was a 32-year-old in her first term in her first full time elected office who faced a number of city officials loyal to the man she beat for the job. It's also not the version that was portrayed as gospel truth in Time Magazine. Namely, no request was made to ban any books and no specific books or "inappropriate language" was mentioned.

The only people who are quoted are people who are hostile to Palin. Since she has an 80% approval rating in the state, it shouldn't be too hard to find people who like her and get their side of the story.

And, most important, no attempt by Time Magazine to verify the story or do any additional research (other than calling and getting no response from the librarian) or to get Palin's version of the story.

Bob, quit posting talking points and think for yourself.

Just for a point of clarity: if you think that Palin thinks the war in Iraq is "God's task" based on the church commission video, then you need to re-watch the video.

Here are Palin's actual words, after mentioning that her son was going to go to Iraq:

". . . that our leaders, our national leaders, are sending them out on a task that is from God, that is what we have to make sure that we are praying for, that there is a plan, and that that plan is God's plan."

From what I recall from past posts, you are not a church-going fellow, so you may not have heard this typical prayer. It is incredibly commonplace for Christians to pray that we are doing His will, not our own will. It is commonplace to pray for wisdom and guidance to elected officials, that they are led to do what is right. In short, Palin did not say that the Iraq War is God's task. She said that we need to pray (everyday) to make sure that our actions in Iraq are God's will.

(I will admit that the earlier inclusion of the pipeline and prayer was odd, but she had an audience of young voters and would have been thinking of re-election as governor at that time. You might as well publicize what you accomplished that no governor before you could.)[/b]

what you posted was

That she thinks creationism should be taught in public schools.

what you said she meant was

That she thinks creationism should ALSO be taught in public schools.


Mac who doesn't have a vote in this election.

macrae1234 wrote:what you posted was

That she thinks creationism should be taught in public schools.

what you said she meant was

That she thinks creationism should ALSO be taught in public schools.


Mac who doesn't have a vote in this election.

Actually, I think it was that she thought discussion about it shouldn't be quashed. Not that it should be taught, just that those who might rebut something should not be silenced.

Once again, to edit, I don't think religion should be taught, other than as a comparative course or whatever, in public schools either. It's been discussed in other threads. But, discussion...eh, we have to discuss many things that we may not believe in religiously in public schools, so let's be fair.

She also didn't talk about:

-how high fructose corn syrup, like sugar, is fine in moderation

-how she saved 15% by switching to Geico

-that she's hoping to get an offer to be on Dancing with the Stars if the VP thing doesn't work out

I mean please. Regardless of your political affiliation, you know these conventions are for the positive stuff. The stuff they want highlighted. Every other day between now and the election is for the press to bring up whatever they want. The convention is the short period of time that each party has to control the message, the tone, the spin, etc. Don't hate them for it.

Sunflower, you're very wise.

sunflower wrote:She also didn't talk about:

-how high fructose corn syrup, like sugar, is fine in moderation

-how she saved 15% by switching to Geico

-that she's hoping to get an offer to be on Dancing with the Stars if the VP thing doesn't work out

I mean please. Regardless of your political affiliation, you know these conventions are for the positive stuff. The stuff they want highlighted. Every other day between now and the election is for the press to bring up whatever they want. The convention is the short period of time that each party has to control the message, the tone, the spin, etc. Don't hate them for it.

I think I'm falling in love with you. OK, don't worry, I'm not a stalker.

You are an incredibly smart and funny woman. And I mean that sincerely.

Knee-jerk political posting makes no sense. It tells the reader nothing more than you know how to spout the talking points. I enjoy political debate of almost all sorts, but I enjoy it most when the responses and discussion are the thoughts of the individuals (rather than the same old talking points), well-thought-out and reasoned, don't stoop to name calling, ad hominem attacks, and excess hyperbole. I don't mind if people disagree with me, but I'll respect someone more if they consider all points of view before making a decision, and keep the discourse civil.

Just my 2 pennies.

Thank you.

Exactly why I don't bother reading 99% of the political threads.

I like Sunflower a lot too.

Awwwww shucks you guys.......thanks!

I'm with KT, I'm all for political debate, honestly. I just think it needs to be respectful and constructive. We don't all need to agree all the time, we just need to disagree with civility.