Mccain's VP.

[Peikko 1,575]

Gary, you keep interchanging 'a person of faith' with this person who isn't just a 'person of faith' (like Barack, or Hilary or Joe or even McCain) but a person who holds some very exteme views that are not even shared by the majority of people of faith. Doing so makes you look as though you don't understand the argument as it stands. You can't just widen the door to include whatever you like, just because you think that might bolster your point of view. Doing so changes the substance of the argument substantially to the point where you are expecting me to defend a position I don't even hold.

[britty 1]

Gary, in the rest of the western world, a belief in creationism as 'scientific' is considered very extreme and an example of a fanatical belief system. I haven't met anyone in the US who does believe this rubbish, just as well really I couldn't take them seriously. I don't hate people like that, and they don't scare me in day to day terms, but rising to the top of a great western democracy, yes, I do think that is a very, very bad thing.

I'm not sure that is a true statement. It would be very hard to qualify but can you advise where those statistics came from?

[IAMX 3,055]

Rejecting a person of faith? No, I would vote for Barack who is a person of faith. This goes way beyond faith but you can't see that so this isn't going to go anywhere. Suffice to say, this woman just wouldn't get anywhere running with such extremist amd religiously fanatical views were she to go into politics in any other western democracy.

Listen to yourself. Your afraid of what she represents. This isn't extreme or fanatical. This is mainstream middle America. Sorry if you don't like it.

Haha, "mainstream middle America". You aren't reserved in the slightest to make yourself or your candidate seem "moderate", when, yes, it is extreme. Someone who wants to teach religion in science classes is not mainstream. Someone who wants to rid of abortion in every single case is extreme. Someone who goes out of their way to prevent gays from being married is extreme. Sorry, you're not a moderate. Again, compare yourself to actual moderates who are fiscal conservatives and pro-rights, and pro-limited corporate. Pretty much libertarian. You're completely authoritarian.

Edited August 30, 2008 by SRVT

[Fedup 0]

"just bolsters your parties arrogance and elitist perception."

I repeat again, I do not belong to any party.

Funny, but anyone I have ever seen with exaggerated religious beliefs always try to drag this down along some "party" issue.

It's an issue of school and science.

If terms like "school" and "science" to you equal to arrogance and elitism, fine. Nothing to argue about.

Maybe I have same feelings about terms "creationism" and "bullshit" or "mental disorder".

Maybe everyone who is educated is "elitist" and "arrogant" for you, but these are the people who built everything around you, including the comp you use now and internet. They could have done much more praying or meditating about the creation of the universe probably.

Do you still see party and politics in that ?

[Peikko 1,575]

Honestly the fact that you, as someone who doesn't even think creationism makes sense, can consider this person as a serious politician? It's not a small thing to reject science. It's huge.

Show me where she rejects science. She didn't. That is just the lefts talking points. Asking that something be taught IN ADDITION to evolution isn't rejecting anything. Nice try but it isn't going to stick.

This is really freaky that someone can actually think it's reasonable.

I've heard that there are some places where people do not believe in logic or reason, and I've seen a president saying "let's pray" instead of acting.

Scary sh*t.

I do not want a pres who will reply to a 3 o'clock phone call with words: "let's pray"

And I think it's just as freaky when someone is so afraid of a person of faith. Your showing just how nervous the left is. It makes me very happy to see that. Please rant on.

You fail to get that it's not about "left" or "right", dems or cons.

In modern (civilized, educated) world words "creationism" and "school" just do not belong together.

Do you think your TV works because god wants it to?

God makes hurricanes and rain?

It, or he or whatever, created everything in universe in 6 days? This is what you want your kids to think, so that they too will be unable to use a judgement and logic...

I don't. I want my kids to be capable to make their own decisions and be responsible for their lives and lives of others around them.

I know, it's hard to understand, easier to pray.

Ah, I see. Someone of faith isn't civilized or educated. Nice all inclusive big tent you have there. Keep talking, stuff like this just bolsters your parties arrogance and elitist perception.

Gary, in the rest of the western world, a belief in creationism as 'scientific' is considered very extreme.

The last time I looked this wasn't "the rest of the western world".

No, this isn't but that doesn't change the fact that Sarah is on the fringes of belief with her acceptance of creationism. It also doesn't change the fact that she doesn't understand the difference between science and belief. That on its own is enough quite frankly for me to reject her politically. She may very well be a great mother, a nice person, I don't know, but it's simply not relevant.

[Peikko 1,575]

Gary, in the rest of the western world, a belief in creationism as 'scientific' is considered very extreme and an example of a fanatical belief system. I haven't met anyone in the US who does believe this rubbish, just as well really I couldn't take them seriously. I don't hate people like that, and they don't scare me in day to day terms, but rising to the top of a great western democracy, yes, I do think that is a very, very bad thing.

I'm not sure that is a true statement. It would be very hard to qualify but can you advise where those statistics came from?

Name one politician from anywhere else in the western world who believes in creationism. Just one, I don't know of one, although I guess it's possible. However, it is certainly true that the majority of western politicians do not support this dogma.

[MrsCat 6]

I haven't read this thread - but I love his choice of VP. It was a very strategic choice and I cannot wait to see them on the campaign trail with real concrete examples of how to address the energy issues of the US. She's not a hope and change kinda girl - she's concrete and I love that about her.

[jundp 191]

"She received a bachelor of science degree in communications-journalism from the University of Idaho in 1987."

What, exactly, does this have to do with anything?

Seriously. I'm a Democrat, but I also don't think pulling up things like this accomplishes anything, except to make the person saying these things look silly. So she doesn't have a degree from Harvard or Yale? Is that the point?

SO FREAKING WHAT?! Or is it a degree in mass communication that is off-putting?

I just don't get this kind of stuff. It's like the Republicans who say "Obama's middle name is Hussein...he must be a terrorist."

Gah. People...

Fedup, I am still waiting for you to respond to this....

[Peikko 1,575]

It's not hard to quantify at all, how ridiculous. There are no western democracies outside of the US where religious belief is enough to get them elected, not any, no where, none rien nada. Politicians stand or fall on their political ideology, not religous belief.

[GaryC 7]

Gary, in the rest of the western world, a belief in creationism as 'scientific' is considered very extreme and an example of a fanatical belief system. I haven't met anyone in the US who does believe this rubbish, just as well really I couldn't take them seriously. I don't hate people like that, and they don't scare me in day to day terms, but rising to the top of a great western democracy, yes, I do think that is a very, very bad thing.

I'm not sure that is a true statement. It would be very hard to qualify but can you advise where those statistics came from?

Name one politician from anywhere else in the western world who believes in creationism. Just one, I don't know of one, although I guess it's possible. However, it is certainly true that the majority of western politicians do not support this dogma.

What the rest of the world believes isn't important. 80% of Americans believe in a higher power. While not all of the believe in the literal creation story a lot do believe (as I do) in some form of it. The universe is billions of years old. And God created it knowing that the result would be the world as we see it now. So call me a religious nut with extreme views. Go ahead.

[IAMX 3,055]

a religious nut with extreme views

[Fedup 0]

I don't believe that Creationism should be taught in public schools. Private, church-based schools, ok if they want to. This is one of my very few gripes with Bobby Jindal.

However, I don't think there's any problem with the president (or whomever) saying "Let's pray" as long as that isn't his (or her) plan of action. Hell, I grew up with the whole school praying together before a football game at a public high school.

Anyway, advocating that Creationism be taught in public schools is, IMHO, infringing on our Constitution, because it's the Christian view of Creationism, and does only stand for one religious view, which is very clearly prohibited by our Constitution.

ETA: Fedup, I still want to know what her college degree and university choice has to do with her being qualified or not for this role....

I think VP job, or any other serious job has certain educational or intellectual requirements.

I do not think University choice has anything to do with it. Dubya went to Yale, look at him, did not help much..

But extended degree, or at least a degree in something relevant would be really helpful. What I see she could be nice press secretary, or a journalist or radio person, whatever.

Sometimes of course life or work experience can replace educational requirements, I would not even bring up an issue if she had started her own business and made it a success, or worked 5-10 years as a senior executive.

But the combination is just not there.

She would be expected to be and to do a lot. VP position requires a lot of international exposure, political weight. Does she have it?

I know, lately the bar is set reeeeaaaallly low.. but still.

Is she equal to PMs or VPs of major global players?

just not right, not enough. and not sure we can afford to learn as we go, tried it in the last 8 years. Dubya just learned how to walk without tripping over and ride a bike without running into someone, while we had to pay for the disaster.

[Fedup 0]

What the rest of the world believes isn't important.

So, next time the world says same about you, do not get all pissed off like Condy or Dubya do.

That is how we earn our world standing.

It's really pointless. I'm sorry for you and understand your anger at the world.

[britty 1]

Gary, in the rest of the western world, a belief in creationism as 'scientific' is considered very extreme and an example of a fanatical belief system. I haven't met anyone in the US who does believe this rubbish, just as well really I couldn't take them seriously. I don't hate people like that, and they don't scare me in day to day terms, but rising to the top of a great western democracy, yes, I do think that is a very, very bad thing.

I'm not sure that is a true statement. It would be very hard to qualify but can you advise where those statistics came from?

Name one politician from anywhere else in the western world who believes in creationism. Just one, I don't know of one, although I guess it's possible. However, it is certainly true that the majority of western politicians do not support this dogma.

You weren't specific to politicians in your original comment, and stated the "western world". That is why I asked where those statistics were taken from. However, creationism is really not an example of a fanatical belief system and is in fact a belief held by millions of people across the world. Palin is not saying that creationism should replace a science class, but rather an option to be taught alongside. Whether you accept it or not, there are millions of children throughout this world who are being taught creationism at home, so to extend that to the schoolroom is really not a big deal.

[IAMX 3,055]

I don't believe that Creationism should be taught in public schools. Private, church-based schools, ok if they want to. This is one of my very few gripes with Bobby Jindal.

However, I don't think there's any problem with the president (or whomever) saying "Let's pray" as long as that isn't his (or her) plan of action. Hell, I grew up with the whole school praying together before a football game at a public high school.

Anyway, advocating that Creationism be taught in public schools is, IMHO, infringing on our Constitution, because it's the Christian view of Creationism, and does only stand for one religious view, which is very clearly prohibited by our Constitution.

ETA: Fedup, I still want to know what her college degree and university choice has to do with her being qualified or not for this role....

I think VP job, or any other serious job has certain educational or intellectual requirements.

I do not think University choice has anything to do with it. Dubya went to Yale, look at him, did not help much..

But extended degree, or at least a degree in something relevant would be really helpful. What I see she could be nice press secretary, or a journalist or radio person, whatever.

Sometimes of course life or work experience can replace educational requirements, I would not even bring up an issue if she had started her own business and made it a success, or worked 5-10 years as a senior executive.

But the combination is just not there.

She would be expected to be and to do a lot. VP position requires a lot of international exposure, political weight. Does she have it?

I know, lately the bar is set reeeeaaaallly low.. but still.

Is she equal to PMs or VPs of major global players?

just not right, not enough. and not sure we can afford to learn as we go, tried it in the last 8 years. Dubya just learned how to walk without tripping over and ride a bike without running into someone, while we had to pay for the disaster.

I don't agree. Unlike most Repubicans, some can actually fairly address an issue, rather than cling to personal ideology about everything. One can gain life experience and more than a sufficient amount of intelligence in politics without a piece of paper from a college suggesting they have now read enough books and taken enough units to suffice such intelligence. As someone who's a business major and in courses, as well as a minor in poly sci, I can say in a simple debate on major issues, face to face, one can tell if another actually knows their politics, government, economics, english skills, and history.

While someone cannot be discounted simply because they do not have a degree in the right field (extremely successful corporations like Google and Microsoft hire those for front page/engineering who have English degrees, so they know one thing or two about necessary skills), it is clear as day that Palin is an extremist and an ideologue and would not serve the people.

so to extend that to the schoolroom is really not a big deal.

No, it is a big deal. There's a nice piece of paper called "The Constitution", a little more meaningful than a degree, as well as legal court cases slamming down teaching religious bullshit in schools. Keep it out, it has no place. Doesn't matter how much you want it in public schools. You have the option of private school. Use it.

Edited August 30, 2008 by SRVT