Sarah Palin and the Two Americas

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

It says something that there's this whole demographic checklist for what's acceptable in a Presidential candidate.

Why is it, for instance that a candidate must be happily married, preferably with a handful of children. You won't ever see a single or divorced guy up for the nod, let alone a gay guy...

Why is that I wonder? Why is there this emphasis on a person's personal life as the deciding factor to whether they are suitable for high office?

It has absolutely nothing to do with their qualifications...

[Peikko 1,575]

That and they have to believe in god.

[alienlovechild 75]

Why is it, for instance that a candidate must be happily married, preferably with a handful of children. You won't ever see a single or divorced guy up for the nod, let alone a gay guy...

Pres. Buchanan was a single guy. Pres. Reagan was the first divorced guy. Damn 6, look up the facts before you start in with your idle speculation. You remind me of a Venezulan I talked to 20 years ago. He said there would never be a black president in America. I wish there was poll on how many bloody foreigners consider themselves the next Alex de Tocqueville.

You missed my point. That's ok - to be expected I suppose.

You always say that when you don't know your subject matter.

Edited September 3, 2008 by alienlovechild

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

Why is it, for instance that a candidate must be happily married, preferably with a handful of children. You won't ever see a single or divorced guy up for the nod, let alone a gay guy...

Pres. Buchanan was a single guy. Pres. Reagan was the first divorced guy. Damn 6, look up the facts before you start in with your idle speculation. You remind me of a Venezulan I talked to 20 years ago. He said there would never be a black president in America. I wish there was poll on how many bloody foreigners consider themselves the next Alex de Tocqueville.

Lets see - a president in the late 18th century, and a president who married his second wife in the 50's - nearly 30 years before taking office (with enough water under the bridge for people not to care).

In other words - the exception rather than the rule...

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

You missed my point. That's ok - to be expected I suppose.

You always say that when you don't know your subject matter.

Well... it just goes to show that you weren't paying attention. My argument wasn't about the ins and outs of the Edwards political conduct relating to their family history. It was an ethical one - to do with one's own behavior and being able to recognise lines of argument that lower your ethical standing.

Essentially all you're doing by slamming Edwards is justifying the idea that you think its perfectly OK to make exceptions to your own rule and attack someone's personal tragedy if you feel they deserve it.

Quite simply - whether or not those people are cynically exploiting their own tragedy doesn't make a difference to the ethical aspect of it. YOU (as in the collective you) are responsible for your own behaviour and conduct, not that of other people.

[Trompe le Monde 1,107]

I'm fairly consist because I have to fill you in 6 on the details but most people ignore what doesn't fit the insults. My advice is to you is to watch Palin's speech tonight and although she may not get your vote (Can you vote yet?) I'm sure it's going to a media event that may actually change some votes on an unknown candidate who has been shredded by the media woodchipper. Speeches don't count you say? A speech at the DNC convention in 2004 propelled a nobody to stardom 4 years later, that nobody was Obama himself! The play is the thing where we hope to catch the conscience of the king (or the American public).

I will be interested to see her speech tonight. I think all these people dismissing Palin as some kind of lightweight and stupid don't watch the financial news networks (or read the IBD) - she has been on quite a bit over the summer because of her position on drilling in ANWR.

She is very articulate and persuasive. And I say that as someone who is opposed to drilling in ANWR.

[Eric_and_Corinna 0]

Why is it, for instance that a candidate must be happily married, preferably with a handful of children. You won't ever see a single or divorced guy up for the nod, let alone a gay guy...

Pres. Buchanan was a single guy. Pres. Reagan was the first divorced guy. Damn 6, look up the facts before you start in with your idle speculation. You remind me of a Venezulan I talked to 20 years ago. He said there would never be a black president in America. I wish there was poll on how many bloody foreigners consider themselves the next Alex de Tocqueville.

You missed my point. That's ok - to be expected I suppose.

You always say that when you don't know your subject matter.

I almost choked...for some reason I was thinking PAT Buchanan! Had to re-read a little more closely.

I'm kind of surprised Taft was married.

[symbiosis 0]

That and they have to believe in god.

nowadays just believing in god isn't enough, you have to be some sort of a zealot (or at least pretend to be). and it's not just president, no avowed atheist stands a chance of being elected dog catcher. Considering that statistically atheists tend to be better educated and have higher IQs (yes, it's a fact), that says a lot about where America is heading.

Edited September 3, 2008 by symbiosis

[Marilyn. 340]

That and they have to believe in god.

nowadays just believing in god isn't enough, you have to be some sort of a zealot (or at least pretend to be). and it's not just president, no avowed atheist stands a chance of being elected dog catcher. Considering that statistically atheists tend to be better educated and having higher IQs (yes, it's a fact), that says a lot about where America is heading.

[symbiosis 0]

That and they have to believe in god.

nowadays just believing in god isn't enough, you have to be some sort of a zealot (or at least pretend to be). and it's not just president, no avowed atheist stands a chance of being elected dog catcher. Considering that statistically atheists tend to be better educated and having higher IQs (yes, it's a fact), that says a lot about where America is heading.

http://www.timeshighereducation.co.uk/stor...;sectioncode=26

"Of 43 studies carried out since 1927 on the relationship between religious belief and one's intelligence and/or educational level, all but four found an inverse connection. That is, the higher one's intelligence or education level, the less one is likely to be religious or hold "beliefs" of any kind."

Bell, Paul. "Would you believe it?" Mensa Magazine, Feb. 2002, pp. 12–13 30

http://www.kxmc.com/getArticle.asp?ArticleId=253002

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=73493

Edited September 3, 2008 by symbiosis

[Peikko 1,575]

What I would be interested in, is the correlation between belief in a personal god and scientists (those who have gained an MSC and higher in particular). That probably would say something interesting - but probably nothing surprising.

[rclouse 0]

And yet another one:

No matter what Palin is bad for McCain:

If he didn't vet her, here's the most important decision he has made in his political career and he failed to do the necessary background work to make sure she was right for his campaign.

If he did vet her, here's a woman with no national policy experience, no foreign policy experience, multiple corruption charges, extremist political language, past involvement in a secessionist movement, hypocritical on family values, pro-censorship, related to big oil and with no major campaign experience - what does it say about his judgement that he went with her?

The man took a decision that could have reinvigorated his campaign and blew it like a Republican Senator in a Minneapolis airport.

[Cassie 8]

That and they have to believe in god.

nowadays just believing in god isn't enough, you have to be some sort of a zealot (or at least pretend to be). and it's not just president, no avowed atheist stands a chance of being elected dog catcher. Considering that statistically atheists tend to be better educated and having higher IQs (yes, it's a fact), that says a lot about where America is heading.

Ok, I'll take my university degree and my 136 IQ and my Christian faith back on home to Canada then, wouldn't want to skew the statistics.

[Peikko 1,575]

That and they have to believe in god.

nowadays just believing in god isn't enough, you have to be some sort of a zealot (or at least pretend to be). and it's not just president, no avowed atheist stands a chance of being elected dog catcher. Considering that statistically atheists tend to be better educated and having higher IQs (yes, it's a fact), that says a lot about where America is heading.

Ok, I'll take my university degree and my 136 IQ and my Christian faith back on home to Canada then, wouldn't want to skew the statistics.

Are you joking? Or is this high IQ and university degree worth naught?

[Cassie 8]

That and they have to believe in god.

nowadays just believing in god isn't enough, you have to be some sort of a zealot (or at least pretend to be). and it's not just president, no avowed atheist stands a chance of being elected dog catcher. Considering that statistically atheists tend to be better educated and having higher IQs (yes, it's a fact), that says a lot about where America is heading.

Ok, I'll take my university degree and my 136 IQ and my Christian faith back on home to Canada then, wouldn't want to skew the statistics.

Are you joking? Or is this high IQ and university degree worth naught?

It was said with a heavy dose of sarcasm, and yet with a sense of tiredness at the "Christian = intellectual blackhole" stereotype that has run rampant on VJ the last couple of days.

Edited September 3, 2008 by Cassie