First Female Republican V.P. Candidate

[lovegrenade]

Does anyone have any substantive disagreements with her positions, or do you not like the VICE-presidential candidate simply because she speaks with an accent?

Speaking of the accent, does she remind anyone else of the mom from Bobby's World? The accent is annoying, but that's definitely not why I don't like her. Her entire political career is riddled with allegations of abuses of power, and I'm not about to give her the benefit of the doubt when there's a chance that she will be President. She is a young earth creationist, which to me, is the ultimate demonstration of her severe lack of critical thinking abilities. Despite her Christian Values, she seems to have absolutely no problem with lying on the campaign trail in regards to her position on the Bridge to Nowhere deal. In the very limited view we've had of her, she has shown that the only thing she is capable of doing is repeating GOP talking points, regardless of whether or not they address the question answered.

By the way, being in the top 20% of your high school class is not hard, and probably not even required when your father and grandfather are Admirals in the Navy. We're in an economic crisis and neither McCain nor Palin seem to have a very impressive grasp on Economics. They ARE think with your gut people, and we've all seen how that worked out over the last 8 years. Hotzester, I know there are a few party faithfuls out there like you, but the independents have seen Palin and McCain for what they are, and the polls are turning. I'm glad that you enjoy the pick, but just know that you're now in the minority thinking that it was a good one.

[hotzester]

I don't know the Bobby's World reference, never saw it.

Allegations of abuses of power. You must mean Troopergate. Interesting that the trooper who was allegedly at the center of that debate has admitted he used a taser on his 11-year-old stepson. I don't know whether or not Sarah Palin encouraged this guy be fired, but ask yourself this - shouldn't he have been?

She's a young earth creationist, which to you, is the ultimate demonstration of her severe lack of critical thinking abilities. Wow, this is such an arrogant statement, I hardly know where to begin. She disagrees with you so she must not be capable of thought. Well done.

Her position on the Bridge to Nowhere is a bit peculiar. Lies? I don't know. Change of position? Maybe. But how does it have anything to do with the campaign? Let me ask you something - and be honest, don't look it up - what's the REAL name for the "Bridge to Nowhere"? If it's that serious of an issue, I'd imagine you'd know it without relying on Wikipedia. (And no, I didn't know it either, because it's not an issue to me.)

The only thing she's doing is repeating GOP talking points. Right, because Barack Obama is so fresh with universal healthcare, raising taxes on the wealthy, "change", ending the war, and race baiting.

If you can find information that confirms Senator McCain was literally grandfathered into Annapolis, I'd love to hear it. Until then, you're just mudslinging.

Again, I'm HARDLY a party faithful. I was a registered democrat who grew up at boot camp, and I later registered a republican. I'm not at all thrilled with McCain - I like Sarah Palin, but I think McCain is far too moderate to satisfy me.

That said, he's a THOUSAND times better for my principles than Barack Obama.


EDIT: And PS - If I'm in the "minority", so be it. I'm not one to care whether or not I'm doing what the cool kids are doing. I make my decisions based on my core values, not on what the polls suggest others are doing.

[residentialevil]

I fail to see anything from Obama's talking points that prove he has any idea how to fix the current economic problem. All he has preached is straight up socialism. If you're ok with that, so be it.

Please tell me exactly what "change" Obama is going to bring, other than not being George W. Bush or a Republican. Everything he's said has been said the last 50 years by the DNC. If you think the economy is bad now, then wait until Obama gets everything he's "promised"; things actually CAN get worse you know.

I don't even like McCain. I'm more Ron Paul than anyone. But I'm sick of the c-sucking going on for Obama. He's said absolutely NOTHING new, and the sheep eat it up.

[lovegrenade]

I don't know the Bobby's World reference, never saw it.

Allegations of abuses of power. You must mean Troopergate. Interesting that the trooper who was allegedly at the center of that debate has admitted he used a taser on his 11-year-old stepson. I don't know whether or not Sarah Palin encouraged this guy be fired, but ask yourself this - shouldn't he have been?

She's a young earth creationist, which to you, is the ultimate demonstration of her severe lack of critical thinking abilities. Wow, this is such an arrogant statement, I hardly know where to begin. She disagrees with you so she must not be capable of thought. Well done.

Her position on the Bridge to Nowhere is a bit peculiar. Lies? I don't know. Change of position? Maybe. But how does it have anything to do with the campaign? Let me ask you something - and be honest, don't look it up - what's the REAL name for the "Bridge to Nowhere"? If it's that serious of an issue, I'd imagine you'd know it without relying on Wikipedia. (And no, I didn't know it either, because it's not an issue to me.)

The only thing she's doing is repeating GOP talking points. Right, because Barack Obama is so fresh with universal healthcare, raising taxes on the wealthy, "change", ending the war, and race baiting.

If you can find information that confirms Senator McCain was literally grandfathered into Annapolis, I'd love to hear it. Until then, you're just mudslinging.

Again, I'm HARDLY a party faithful. I was a registered democrat who grew up at boot camp, and I later registered a republican. I'm not at all thrilled with McCain - I like Sarah Palin, but I think McCain is far too moderate to satisfy me.

That said, he's a THOUSAND times better for my principles than Barack Obama.


EDIT: And PS - If I'm in the "minority", so be it. I'm not one to care whether or not I'm doing what the cool kids are doing. I make my decisions based on my core values, not on what the polls suggest others are doing.

So let me get this straight, you're ok with illegal abuses of power as long as it ends well? The "ends justifies the means" will make an excellent presidential policy; Bush would be honored. The funny part is that she abused her power, and still didn't get the result she wanted. Also, this was not the only abuse of power allegation that has surfaced.

The Bridge to Nowhere was the Gravina Island Bridge, and the Road to Nowhere. I'm pretty well informed of all things relating to Palin. This includes reading the articles from Alaskan newspapers when Palin was supporting the bridge to the Ketchican Airport.

I didn't say that McCain was grandfathered into the Naval Academy, I said that being in the top 20% of your high school class is not at all hard, and I am also sure that had he not been in the top 20% of his class, that two Admirals would have the power to get him in. They certaintly kept him from getting kicked out when he crashed expensive military planes.

My reference to her repeating talking points even if they don't make sense, was coming from the following quotes.

COURIC: "Why isn

[airhornahole]

Hotzester and Lovegrenade, 15 SECOND FIGHT!!!!!

[plungerhand]

Hotzester and Lovegrenade, 15 SECOND FIGHT!!!!!

My money's on hotzester!!! of course Love G is not allowed to pull the pin...

[lovegrenade]

Hotzester and Lovegrenade, 15 SECOND FIGHT!!!!!

My money's on hotzester!!! of course Love G is not allowed to pull the pin...

I wouldn't feel right taking your money Plunger. I have yet to lose a boxing match, and even though it's been a few years since I had an official fight, I'm pretty sure I could throw together a mean 15 seconds; with or without a grenade.

[hotzester]

So let me get this straight, you're ok with illegal abuses of power as long as it ends well? The "ends justifies the means" will make an excellent presidential policy; Bush would be honored. The funny part is that she abused her power, and still didn't get the result she wanted. Also, this was not the only abuse of power allegation that has surfaced.

That's not at all what I said - what I said was that I don't know if there was an abuse of power, any more than you do. We'll have to see what the investigation reveals. I continued by saying IF there was an abuse against a man that admits to tasering a child, I have no issues with that because I don't want that guy protecting the population.

The Bridge to Nowhere was the Gravina Island Bridge, and the Road to Nowhere. I'm pretty well informed of all things relating to Palin. This includes reading the articles from Alaskan newspapers when Palin was supporting the bridge to the Ketchican Airport.

At least you've taken the initiative to read up - that's more than I can say for most! Impressive.

I didn't say that McCain was grandfathered into the Naval Academy, I said that being in the top 20% of your high school class is not at all hard, and I am also sure that had he not been in the top 20% of his class, that two Admirals would have the power to get him in. They certaintly kept him from getting kicked out when he crashed expensive military planes.

You most certainly DID imply that McCain didn't need the grades due to his family ties:

By the way, being in the top 20% of your high school class is not hard, and probably not even required when your father and grandfather are Admirals in the Navy.

Again, it's KATIE COURIC - you've got to take that with the same grain of salt as Charlie Gibson or even Al Franken.

I don't mind someone disagreeing with me, they have that right. Ignoring every piece of scientific evidence available in order to believe that the Earth is only 6000 years old shows a severe lack of Critical Thinking though. She is actively IGNORING the evidence and is thus, IGNORANT. I've visited the Creation "Museum" in Kentucky, and it was the single saddest, most ridiculous think I've witnessed in my adult life.

You don't believe in creationism. Great. Neither do I, completely. But I don't blindly believe the THEORY of evolution, either. I think both should be taught fairly, so people can make up their own minds. (And if man evolved from monkeys, why are there still monkeys? Why have some monkeys opted out?)

If McCain fits your principles, that's fine, vote for him. I'm just happy to see that most people are realizing that Palin was a bad pick. Not because it's popular to think that she's a bad pick, but because she actually is a bad pick. Even the conservatives are jumping off the Palin bandwagon.

McCain doesn't completely fit my principles. Truth be told, I'd have much rather seen Romney on the ticket. But Obama is nowhere close to my principles, and his affiliations with radicals are a little unnerving for me. I like McCain on defense, which is the biggest issue to me. Without a good defense, the other crap doesn't matter.

Was Sarah Palin a bad pick? I like her, but I've yet to find a good deal on ebay for a crystal ball. Only time will tell. Thank you, though, for at least presenting an intelligent, educated debate on the issue - it's better than "Bush stole 2000" and "she talks funny".

[hotzester]

And as for a 15 second fight, no thanks. I've found LG's debating skills to be honorable - we just disagree. Ain't nuffin' wrong with dat!

[Queenie]

And as for a 15 second fight, no thanks. I've found LG's debating skills to be honorable - we just disagree. Ain't nuffin' wrong with dat!

+1 for sportmanship

[plungerhand]

+1 for some great reading. You 2 are awesome!!!!!

[hotzester]

LOL Man, I've got you snowed.

[lovegrenade]

If Palin had nothing to hide, than she would be cooperating with the speedy investigation, instead she is trying to make sure that we don't know whether she is guilty until after we've decided whether or not she is going to be our next VP. Again, the last part of your statement kind of sounds like the "end justifies the means".

Please don't blame Katie Couric, for Palin's pathetic, talking-point riddled, answer.

I did imply that McCain didn't need the grades, but I don't know if he had them or not. I stand by my statement that his father and grandfather had plenty of authority to get John in whether or not he deserved to be there. Regardless of that, he was still the 5th from the bottom of his class.

I don't "blindly follow the theory of evolution". I simply recognize that the evidence supporting the theory of evolution exists, and the evidence supporting young earth creationism does not exist. I went to the Creation Museum and watched hundreds of children being brainwashed with this nonsense. Until Creationist can present some sort of verifiable evidence to support their belief, it absolutely should not be taught along side Evolution.

I thought Palin was a bad pick from the beginning, now it appears that her star is falling and the majority of people are starting to agree with that.

PS- I enjoy debating informed opposition as well. Good work.

[residentialevil]

Ignoring the evidence? Look I don't blindly believe the earth is 6000 years old either, but if you know as much about about the theory of evolution as you seem to claim you do, you would know how much assumption has over time become "fact". Even hardcore evolutionists admit that.

But I really don't want to get into the creationism/evolution debate. Neither side can prove anything substantial, and we're here so might as well just enjoy it no matter how it happened.

[lovegrenade]

LOL Man, I've got you snowed.

That's more like it! Sportsmanship is overrated in internet fights. ;D

Seriously though, my devil maker would destroy you...

[residentialevil]

I don't "blindly follow the theory of evolution". I simply recognize that the evidence supporting the theory of evolution exists, and the evidence supporting young earth creationism does not exist. I went to the Creation Museum and watched hundreds of children being brainwashed with this nonsense. Until Creationist can present some sort of verifiable evidence to support their belief, it absolutely should not be taught along side Evolution.

This is where you lose me. I can't speak for the Creation Museum, but there are plenty of reputable scientists with evidence that does support creationism, or at least intelligent design. Whether you want to believe it or not is up to you.

[lovegrenade]

Ignoring the evidence? Look I don't blindly believe the earth is 6000 years old either, but if you know as much about about the theory of evolution as you seem to claim you do, you would know how much assumption has over time become "fact". Even hardcore evolutionists admit that.

But I really don't want to get into the creationism/evolution debate. Neither side can prove anything substantial, and we're here so might as well just enjoy it no matter how it happened.

I love the title "hardcore evolutionists". What does that even mean?
As I said, there is verifiable evidence that supports the theory of evolution. There is no verifiable evidence that supports the theory of young earth creationism.

[lovegrenade]

I don't "blindly follow the theory of evolution". I simply recognize that the evidence supporting the theory of evolution exists, and the evidence supporting young earth creationism does not exist. I went to the Creation Museum and watched hundreds of children being brainwashed with this nonsense. Until Creationist can present some sort of verifiable evidence to support their belief, it absolutely should not be taught along side Evolution.

This is where you lose me. I can't speak for the Creation Museum, but there are plenty of reputable scientists with evidence that does support creationism, or at least intelligent design. Whether you want to believe it or not is up to you.

Evidence that can not be verified through independent experiments, does not qualify as scientific evidence. I recommend taking a trip to the Creation Museum, and you will see the quality of "evidence" that is used to bolster this ridiculous belief. No joke, it's worth it.

[hotzester]

Whereas I had no idea EITHER museum even existed.

Damn, they make museums for everything. (Said the dude who lives in the same town as the Bottle Museum.)

[plungerhand]

If you want to "believe" in creation because your God told you to, that's fine. But to ignore the different species of man at various periods and stages of evolution in the last 30,000 years is just ludicrous. You can look at the mongoloid features of people living today in remote corners of the earth and STILL see it.

[hotzester]

But what proof is there that they've evolved? Because they share similarities? Because they've got comparable DNA? What does that prove, other than the fact that they've got comparable DNA?

I can show you two beings with an apple in their hand, and that doesn't mean one evolved from the other, it means they both picked up an apple.

What's more, where did the DNA come from? What CREATED the DNA?

[plungerhand]

But what proof is there that they've evolved? Because they share similarities? Because they've got comparable DNA? What does that prove, other than the fact that they've got comparable DNA?

I can show you two beings with an apple in their hand, and that doesn't mean one evolved from the other, it means they both picked up an apple.

What's more, where did the DNA come from? What CREATED the DNA?

I am not saying we didn't come from somewhere, I'm saying I been around long enough to believe nobody on this earth, past or present, has gotten it right.

[hotzester]

So then....you're....wrong?

[plungerhand]

So then....you're....wrong?

not wrong, still deep in thought. Also not pushing false ideals or opinions on others..

Your skills are good, if not great. I know when I am out matched....* bows

[hotzester]

HAHA...it's all good.

[lovegrenade]

But what proof is there that they've evolved? Because they share similarities? Because they've got comparable DNA? What does that prove, other than the fact that they've got comparable DNA?

I can show you two beings with an apple in their hand, and that doesn't mean one evolved from the other, it means they both picked up an apple.

What's more, where did the DNA come from? What CREATED the DNA?

Here is one of the pictures from the Creation Museum that I took, just to show how ridiculous, idiotic, and baseless their theories are. They actually do believe in "evolution" they just won't admit that it happened over millions of years because that would disprove their central belief of the young earth. Therefore they teach that organisms did in fact evolve, but only because God gave them "special tools to do so". I've studied both sides of the argument, and I stand by all the previous statements that I've made. One is based on verifiable evidence, and one is based on nothing but a stubborn belief system.

[lovegrenade]

I truly wish that I was making this stuff up. Basically the young earth creationists believe that evolution definitely happened, they just won't admit that it took longer than 6000 years, because that would contradict something in the bible. So if you're going to try and argue against Evolution, please realize that both sides believe in it to some extent.

[hotzester]

The problem is that neither side is completely "prove-able". Evolutionists have a scientific trend that they believe proves them right, and Creationists can't be argued with because the entire belief is rooted in "faith", which can't be proven or disproven.

Personally, I think God put some beings here, and we "matured" (I stop short of saying evolved, because the word has such strict meaning in this particular discussion) from there. Man has gotten taller, for example. In a form, this could be a sort of evolution, but I can't believe we evolved from paramecia in a bog somewhere.

[lovegrenade]

The problem is that neither side is completely "prove-able". Evolutionists have a scientific trend that they believe proves them right, and Creationists can't be argued with because the entire belief is rooted in "faith", which can't be proven or disproven.

Personally, I think God put some beings here, and we "matured" (I stop short of saying evolved, because the word has such strict meaning in this particular discussion) from there. Man has gotten taller, for example. In a form, this could be a sort of evolution, but I can't believe we evolved from paramecia in a bog somewhere.

I think you're misunderstanding the point of the theory of evolution. Scientists aren't trying to prove it, they're actively trying to disprove it. They're conducting experiments and observations that attempt to disprove basic arguments of the theory, and their inability to do this only further supports the theory. If there was verifiable evidence that something didn't fit in the theory, then the theory would be modified to not include that element. Creationists on the other hand, have a "theory" and they simply ignore any evidence that contradicts their theory and then make speculations that conform to the theory.

It is very hard to try and briefly explain this, but if you can get over the title, Richard Dawkin's "The God Delusion" is an excellent source that will answer many of the questions you seem to have.

[hotzester]

Honestly? I don't care either way - how I got here doesn't change that I am.

[oldsquid]

For the short term she was a good political choice. She solidified the GOP base, she fresh and took the spotlight away from Obama giving the Democratic ticket no post convention bounce. Now almost a month later the kinks in the armor is starting to show and the freshness is wearing off.

[hotzester]

For the short term she was a good political choice. She solidified the GOP base, she fresh and took the spotlight away from Obama giving the Democratic ticket no post convention bounce. Now almost a month later the kinks in the armor is starting to show and the freshness is wearing off.

I think you're misinterpreting the data. Obama is up right now, there's no doubting that. Gallup and Rasmussen have him by 6, and Marist College has him by 5. Taking into consideration the margin of error, that's near a dead heat, with a slight edge toward Obama.

But that doesn't necessarily indicate "the freshness is wearing off". Several weeks have passed since the last of the RNC, even MORE time has passed since the DNC, and there's only been one debate. There just hasn't been much to really push on that motivation button recently. Once a few debates go down, both POTUS and VP, a clearer picture will emerge.

[Mad Dog]

Barack graduated from Harvard Law School with Honors, Biden also graduated from law school near the top of his class. These are incredibly intelligent guys who will actually look at the information available to them before making a decision. McCain and Palin are just two more intellectually average "shoot from the hip, think with your gut" Republicans. Do you really want more of that?! Eff no...

Most Americans are smart, but very few of us have graduated "cum Laud" from Harvard Law School and thats part of the problem. Neither this batch of democrats or the last batch appeal to me for that very reason i.e. they seem to come across like average Americans are just part of the great un-washed that need to be fed and taken care of. And since they are smarter than the rest of us they are just the party to do it. I'm just a ex- Regan Democrat and a poor work'in stiff trying to vote for the folks who will keep us the safest and who seem to love our country the most.

[motorboatking]

There has been an onslaught of attacks and critiques on Palin for weeks now. Compare Palin's coverage to Obama's just at the checkout at the grocery store. Compare Palin's interview treatment with Obama's. Just tonight I saw Obama and Biden being interviewed and the main story was if he was getting a dog for his daughters or not. This recent especially one sided treatment is bound to take a toll.

[hotzester]

Most Americans are smart, but very few of us have graduated "cum Laud" from Harvard Law School and thats part of the problem. Neither this batch of democrats or the last batch appeal to me for that very reason i.e. they seem to come across like average Americans are just part of the great un-washed that need to be fed and taken care of. And since they are smarter than the rest of us they are just the party to do it. I'm just a ex- Regan Democrat and a poor work'in stiff trying to vote for the folks who will keep us the safest and who seem to love our country the most.

I don't even know what that means. They're NOT like the rest of us, but they come across as part of the "great unwashed that needs to be fed and taken care of"? Is it me? Am I reading this as contradictory?

And what the hell is a Reagan DEMOCRAT? Ronald Reagan was amazingly conservative. There wasn't a democrat bone in his body.

[motorboatking]

Most Americans are smart, but very few of us have graduated "cum Laud" from Harvard Law School and thats part of the problem. Neither this batch of democrats or the last batch appeal to me for that very reason i.e. they seem to come across like average Americans are just part of the great un-washed that need to be fed and taken care of. And since they are smarter than the rest of us they are just the party to do it. I'm just a ex- Regan Democrat and a poor work'in stiff trying to vote for the folks who will keep us the safest and who seem to love our country the most.

I don't even know what that means. They're NOT like the rest of us, but they come across as part of the "great unwashed that needs to be fed and taken care of"? Is it me? Am I reading this as contradictory?

And what the hell is a Reagan DEMOCRAT? Ronald Reagan was amazingly conservative. There wasn't a democrat bone in his body.

I believe he's on your side of the table. Reagan used to be a democrat but he was conservative. He said that the democrat party left him not that he left them. He remained conservative while they became more and more liberal.

[hotzester]

No no, I also think he's agreeing with me, it just seemed to be worded....oddly....and I couldn't follow it.

[oldsquid]

Good essay.

http://www.project-syndicate.org/print_c...45/English

[speedbump]

But what proof is there that they've evolved? Because they share similarities? Because they've got comparable DNA? What does that prove, other than the fact that they've got comparable DNA?

I can show you two beings with an apple in their hand, and that doesn't mean one evolved from the other, it means they both picked up an apple.

What's more, where did the DNA come from? What CREATED the DNA?

The fact that humans have DNA very comparable to chimpanzees proves nothing, if it weren't for the fact that we can also compare the traits of humans and chimps. Does it surprise you that the DNA of humans and chimps is 98% the same when you look at all their similar structure(also called homologous structures)? It shouldn't. Similarly, we share 85% of our DNA with Zebra Fish. At first glance fish and humans don't seem similar, but relative to the rest of the animal kingdom they are. Both are vertebrae, and vertebrae animals are a small percentage of species in the animal kingdom. They have also developed bilateral symmetry, which is one of the first ways to divide species in the animal kingdom.

Now look at a cladogram, which has a "branch" where each species loses a common trait. So in this case, the chimpanzee has all of the branch traits, and the hagfish has none.

Can you look at this picture and see that as organisms on the cladogram have more in common with chimpanzees, the percentage of DNA they share with humans would increase? A mouse is a mammal, and shares many characteristics with humans. They have four limbs, live berth, teeth, hair, cephalization (a trait common in many animals), live on land, and many more traits.

As for the origin of DNA, there are ideas for where it cam from, but none of those is relevant to the function of DNA. The fact that I don't know where DNA came from doesn't mean the entire Theory of Evolution is null and void. The argument for saying "it's just a theory" is also pretty ridiculous, look up the definition of scientific theory and you'll find that in order to become a theory a "scientific idea" must undergo rigorous testing. In science a theory is a testable model for a natural phenomena. A theory must be able to make predictions about what will happen, and must be able to withstand the rigors of scientific experiments. So far no legitimate scientific experiments have disproved evolution.

Some reading material:
http://www.ornl.gov/sci/techresources/Hu...info.shtml - This will help you understand just how much DNA we have and how much it codes for.

http://www.thetech.org/genetics/common.php - how much DNA we share with some well known species.

http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topi...7/homology - homology and its application in evolution

...hopefully this doesn't make me sound "pretentious", and provides SOME explanation for my beliefs.

[Mad Dog]

No no, I also think he's agreeing with me, it just seemed to be worded....oddly....and I couldn't follow it.

I wondered if I was wording my post properly. Actually I've got too much stuff going on in it.