|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 Posted: Fri Aug 29, 2008 8:14 pm
So, McCain's running mate has been chosen. I have to say, not a bad choice. She has a history of standing up to absurd spending (she helped kill the Bridge to Nowhere), and I personally am a fan of her pro-life views, though I'm sure some others here won't feel the same way. But she's certainly a strong choice for running mate; she represents enough of the classic Republicanism that has been forgotten by the current neo-con leadership to bring people back to the party. She's had her critisisms already, of course. There's the incident with the state trooper, although that's largely bunk because a.) it hasn't been tied directly to her and b.) there were legitimate reasons to fire him anyways. I somehow doubt the media will present that fairly though. But despite her being generally one of the good ones, I don't think she manages to balance out McCain's warmongering and police-state support.
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat Aug 30, 2008 9:37 pm
Well, good choice or bad choice, she certainly was an interesting choice.
It bothers me that so many people are saying it's a scam to try to get Hillary's votes. I doubt many people would switch political parties just for the chance of having a woman in office. Besides, it's more likely that he could lose his own supporters, because a lot of Republicans (or at least some of the most conservative ones) might be uncomfortable with a woman up there.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun Aug 31, 2008 9:42 pm
Well MANY Hill voters ARE going to MaCain for some reason that is totally out of my mind.
I'm say
1) He thinks shes hott (I'm just kidding. so calm down)
2) He dosn't want Hills votes, he wants the Womans votes that ONLY voted for Hill becuase she was a girl (which there are)
or
3) HE belivedin what she had to offer. Which I don't know much about Sarah expect that she does have som things in common with Macian, but not many...atlest what I hread...so I could be worng.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue Sep 02, 2008 12:03 am
SparkleEffect Which I don't know much about Sarah expect that she does have som things in common with Macian, but not many...atlest what I hread...so I could be worng. This is why he chose her in my opinion. McCain is a lot more moderate than much of the Christian Right would like him to be and Palin's more conservative views are likely to gain their support. Of course, it makes me even more certain that I do not want McCain to win this election.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Fri Sep 05, 2008 10:01 pm
invisibleairwaves So, McCain's running mate has been chosen. I have to say, not a bad choice. She has a history of standing up to absurd spending (she helped kill the Bridge to Nowhere), and I personally am a fan of her pro-life views, though I'm sure some others here won't feel the same way. But she's certainly a strong choice for running mate; she represents enough of the classic Republicanism that has been forgotten by the current neo-con leadership to bring people back to the party. She's had her critisisms already, of course. There's the incident with the state trooper, although that's largely bunk because a.) it hasn't been tied directly to her and b.) there were legitimate reasons to fire him anyways. I somehow doubt the media will present that fairly though. But despite her being generally one of the good ones, I don't think she manages to balance out McCain's warmongering and police-state support. Actually, she took the bridge to nowhere Money, then decided not to build it when it became an embarrassment. When is she planning to return that money, I'd like to know and if she was so against the project, why did she take and keep the money? If she's so against earmarks, why did she ask for 27 million dollars of them? She also believes women should be forced to carry to term against their will even in cases of rape and incest, that Alaska should succeed from the union, and that Isreal is bad because they have not been converted to Christianity. O.o She also wants to replace evolution in biology class with old school right out of the Bible creationism. We aren't talking ID, even, but God made the world in seven days period. *shudder*
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat Sep 06, 2008 10:43 pm
It was an ok choice cuz McCain would get most Hillary voters since she is a woman and It was a bad choice because Palin is just like Sen. Obama... Inexpirence... is she ready to be VP...
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun Sep 07, 2008 1:58 am
I don't think she's going to get female votes just because she's a woman...I'm guessing most female Hillary supporters had reasons for it beyond gender.
And yes, she lacks experience in Washington, but I'm not sure that's a bad thing. Getting someone into power that isn't a long-time insider like Biden or McCain might actually be a good thing. And the experience she does have (mayor and governer) is a lot more relevant to a White House job than Obama's brief time in Congress. If you're trying to get an executive job, executive experience would certainly be useful.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun Sep 07, 2008 2:03 am
NecHocNecIllud invisibleairwaves So, McCain's running mate has been chosen. I have to say, not a bad choice. She has a history of standing up to absurd spending (she helped kill the Bridge to Nowhere), and I personally am a fan of her pro-life views, though I'm sure some others here won't feel the same way. But she's certainly a strong choice for running mate; she represents enough of the classic Republicanism that has been forgotten by the current neo-con leadership to bring people back to the party. She's had her critisisms already, of course. There's the incident with the state trooper, although that's largely bunk because a.) it hasn't been tied directly to her and b.) there were legitimate reasons to fire him anyways. I somehow doubt the media will present that fairly though. But despite her being generally one of the good ones, I don't think she manages to balance out McCain's warmongering and police-state support. Actually, she took the bridge to nowhere Money, then decided not to build it when it became an embarrassment. When is she planning to return that money, I'd like to know and if she was so against the project, why did she take and keep the money? If she's so against earmarks, why did she ask for 27 million dollars of them? She also believes women should be forced to carry to term against their will even in cases of rape and incest, that Alaska should succeed from the union, and that Isreal is bad because they have not been converted to Christianity. O.o She also wants to replace evolution in biology class with old school right out of the Bible creationism. We aren't talking ID, even, but God made the world in seven days period. *shudder* -She's pro-life, I don't have a problem with that, others will disagree. -No, the whole thing about her belonging to a seccessionist group is a complete falsehood. There is no record of her ever supporting Alaskan seccession. -Haven't heard the one about Israel. Got a link? -Also false. She's been in favour of teaching both Creationism (not necessarily the created-in-7-days kind) and evolution, not replacing one with the other. Of course, I'd say that's a bad thing too, but not nearly as bad as what you're saying she supports.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue Sep 09, 2008 4:23 am
She's also a potential fiscal disaster judging from her mayorship: Shttp://www.crosscut.com/politics-government/17341
Seriously, the last thing we need is someone this fiscally irresponsible in charge.
As to the creationism, your Bible isn't science. you are welcome to teach it in comparative religion class, but creationism is not based on facts, is not reproducible, nor does it follow scientific method. Therefore, it is not science.
Admittedly, I heard her quote about Jews needing to convert on TV news and not remembering the exact wording, google is giving me tons on stuff about her church trying to convert Jews and supporting an "ex-gays" ministries conference and I'm not up to wading through that much scary wrong headedness in the hopes of tracking down her quote, so I'll withdraw it, but I'd like to see your source on her not having been involved with the separatists, as it's widely reported.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue Sep 09, 2008 10:56 pm
If that source is true (and it's an email from her former rival...not the most objective of sources), then yes, that is a concern...probably no worse than what we'd be facing with Obama/Biden, but definitely not great.
I'm well aware that Creationism is not science, and that teaching it in science class is a bad thing, and if you had fully read my post, you would have noticed that I said as much.
As for the separatist thing, I don't think I should have the burden of proof here. It's rather difficult to cite a source that proves that someone was not a member of an organization. It's much easier to link to something that quotes membership records that prove someone's involvement (assuming the claim is true, anyways).
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat Sep 13, 2008 5:39 pm
There are a few issues I had with him choosing Palin (Mainly having to do with my Obama/Biden thing, but I'll be practical): 1.) He had met her all of once in person, and talked to her once before picking her as VP. so he didn't know much about her or her policies/situations (which have been hitting him hard since). 2.) the situation with her pregnant daughter and the forcing of a marriage between the daughter and the teen who got her pregnant when they are both 17. link3.) She is a woman (and I do not mean this as getting pro-Hillary votes, we're not that stupid, and if some woman vote for her because of this, they supported Hillary for all the wrong reasons. Palin is as anti- Hillary as you can get, and not be McCain) Which means, Biden, in all of his hard fought values, will have a heard time debating with her, especially if he gets in the grove, people just don't want to see a man "beat" a woman. 3.) Her age and experience. McCain could not have picked someone worse if he wanted to keep up the inexperience of Obama. The Obama ticket now has more years of Political Experience than McCain's (40 TO 36). And the age thing works with this. The one most likely to die of natural causes in the White house is McCain (he's already had cancer and heart problems, and anyone who knows politics knows that one year in the white house is like five on terms of stress levels.) So we'd be giving the white house in the potential hands of McCain, but if he dies we have someone with 18 months of Governing ability to run where Obama already has two years in D.C. plus all the other work he did in Illinois, and if he dies (god-forbid), then Biden with 30+ years could deal with the shock a death of a president would create, plus keep the country running. Now as for the evolution thing.... I can say I understand why people owuld think that between evolution and creation ism, there is nothing in common, but I would like to point out some things: A.) Creationism, in literal since does say "the earth was created in six days", but "days" in our tears is 24 hours, "days" to the people writing the bible it meant, "Millions of year" (not literally, but that was meant to be the interpretation, people were not stupid back then, they knew the earth was older than 3000 years). B.) Evolution was not sent out into the world as a way to disprove god in any way. Darwin (at the end of his thesis) wondered "If evolution was the tool God used to create all of this wonder". So those that think evolution was set about by Darwin to prove the church wrong.... well, the church approved of his work not long after it's publication. Just some things to think about.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu Oct 09, 2008 11:38 am
Very bad choice. Like it or not it WAS a political ploy--this is politics, boys and girls, not Saintsville. It was an attempt on his part to appeal to feminist and female voters (many of whom were angry with Obama), to appeal to the conservative and Christian base (which was increasingly annoyed with him), and to take attention from Obama.
It. Was. A. Political. Move.
He barely knew her, and he did not make the choice based on who would be a good veep or who would make a good next president if he were elected (let's face it, he probably won't live through his term if elected).
She does NOT understand the issues. She had to get intense, week-long training for her debate and she still did terribly. She does NOT understand how politics work. She didn't even know what a VP does. She does not have Washington experience. She is radically right-wing.
A VP, at the end of the day, should be able to help the President out and take their place if needed. Biden is capable of that job. Let's face it: Palin isn't.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat Oct 25, 2008 8:37 pm
I admit, I was seriously annoyed by Palin's supposed "plan" to help special needs children. In the press of bad craziness, I didn't manage to put together a clear explanation for y'all of why the Palin "plan" is no real plan at all. Luckily, the charming [info]vaspider has done it for me. I only have one thing to add to what she says. That is, most private schools have little or no support for special needs children and public school districts already tend to do things like shuffle autistic children into the schools in their district with the best programs and facilities for autistic children. This is because it make more sense to have one autism specialist at the elementary, middle, and school level each instead of trying to get one for every single school in the district. There is already a serious shortage of special ed teachers do to high burnout rate, and people who really "get" Autistic kids are rarer still. A voucher program does nothing to provide extra classroom aides or specialists for the kids in the actual schools. It definitely does nothing to pay for early intervention, medication, and behavioral therapy. (Not all autistic children need medication, but many have comorbidities that do need medication such as OCD and extreme anxiety.) What's needed is massive health care reform and better funding for schools in general and for special ed and life schools in particular. Trust me, fully funding Sped helps every child in that school because improperly funded sped means not enough classroom support and therefore the classroom teachers have to take up the slack. Teachers having to focus most of their energy on helping the neediest kids means that the middle of the bell curve is left to sink or swim. It's cruel and it's not fair, but its the reality. You give 35-40 children at various levels to one adult to help and guide and the most disruptive kids and most lost whether because of special needs or limited English have to get helped first or risk anarchy. Pop an aid or two in there to gather the most lost and walk them through things and the classroom teacher has actual time to sheep dog the ordinary children, the twenty or so who may or may not get what is going on today. Everything's calmer and most people get a fair share of the attention. This is the reality. study after study shows small class size 15-20 children per teacher) is by far the best for everyone's learning. That's half the size of the average middle school class. instead of putting money into vouchers, hire twice as many teachers. This helps every child in the school, but again, is most crucial for the children with the most problems, who need the most individualized attention and care. Vaspider's lovely reasoned argument pointing out the lies, illogic, and the manipulation in this supposed plan: http://www.dailykos.com/story/2008/10/24/19243/255/377/641360
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed Jan 07, 2009 7:52 pm
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Reply
