McCain chooses Gov. Sarah Palin of Alaska

[IJ]

Sometimes threads move so quickly it's hard to keep up with everything but...

1) Can we cite an individual who is for stare decisis when it involves abortion and against it for the death penalty? *I* explained why there was good reason to overthrow bad law and understood why Scalia + Co would want to reverse R v W. Obama is prochoice and was disappointed the SCOTUS blocked an execution for a brutal but nonlethal crime. It can't just be "the liberals."

2) Yes, Islamic nutjobs are worse than Palin... ok... but we're not discussing electing them, so she's getting more press.

3) If that McCain ad deliberately miscast a law about protecting kids as an attempt to get comprehensive sex ed to small children, he lied. If he exaggerated the extent of the sex ed to scar parents, he lied / manipulated fears instead of discussing policy. But hey, that's politics today. Whatever the case, we all know those poor kids would never have heard of sex, had a sexual impulse, or been at risk for any STD or pregnancy until their late 20s unless Obama had interfered.

4) Sure, candidates are welcome to be honest about their faith, and to discuss it at church meetings OR elsewhere, and are especially encouraged to say that God supports the Iraq war and oil pipelines. Of course, I and the rest of the voters are equally welcomed to be terrified / astounded by those beliefs and to make a fuss about them.

I remember some comedian talking about how sports people always thank god: "How come it isn't ever the other way around? I was totally gonna score that touchdown--until GOD made me fumble!"

[Jason Rees]

IMO many of the thing that pass now would not have passed then. The thought process and trust in the government was at an all time high at that time. Totally different values were the norm.

Yes, values were different, but trust in government was at an all-time high because the government officials couldn't be vetted like they can in the information age. You could hide just about anything in those days, and in politics, ignorance is bliss (for the candidate).

[Jason Rees]

1) Can we cite an individual who is for stare decisis when it involves abortion and against it for the death penalty? *I* explained why there was good reason to overthrow bad law and understood why Scalia + Co would want to reverse R v W. Obama is prochoice and was disappointed the SCOTUS blocked an execution for a brutal but nonlethal crime. It can't just be "the liberals."

Ian, please clarify. What are you looking for here?

3) If that McCain ad deliberately miscast a law about protecting kids as an attempt to get comprehensive sex ed to small children, he lied. If he exaggerated the extent of the sex ed to scar parents, he lied / manipulated fears instead of discussing policy.

Unless the package really did include sex ed for kidnergarteners. Anybody have the name and year of that bill? These are the kinds of things we actually CAN fact-check for ourselves.

4) Sure, candidates are welcome to be honest about their faith, and to discuss it at church meetings OR elsewhere, and are especially encouraged to say that God supports the Iraq war and oil pipelines. Of course, I and the rest of the voters are equally welcomed to be terrified / astounded by those beliefs and to make a fuss about them.

... She didn't say God supports the Iraq war. Egads, Ian, I supplied the direct quote. Look again. As for the pipelines, who cares? Pipeline = oil = better fuel costs = right on the money.

I remember some comedian talking about how sports people always thank god: "How come it isn't ever the other way around? I was totally gonna score that touchdown--until GOD made me fumble!"

Name me a politician who hasn't invoked God this election cycle. Obama thinks what he's doing is right in the sight of God, and I'm sure Palin thinks the same thing. That will always be the case until you have an Atheist running for office. Then (s)he'll just be sure (s)he's doing what is right by their own judgement. Since both are based on their judgement, I don't see a difference. [/quote]

[TSDguy]

3) If that McCain ad deliberately miscast a law about protecting kids as an attempt to get comprehensive sex ed to small children, he lied. If he exaggerated the extent of the sex ed to scar parents, he lied / manipulated fears instead of discussing policy.

Unless the package really did include sex ed for kidnergarteners. Anybody have the name and year of that bill? These are the kinds of things we actually CAN fact-check for ourselves.

It did have sex-ed for kindergarteners, but it wasn't "comprehensive". It said that it was ok to teach kids about "no touch zones" and sexual predators. I can't find the bill immediately because the articles on the thing are clogging my search. I just grabbed a random article from Kansas City so don't bash my conspiracy theories.

http://www.kansascity.com/445/story/789668.html

[AAAhmed46]

AAA

In the youtube ad above on sex ed......there is not even the suggestion of Obama and "pedophile."

Nobody called him that...nobody as much as implied that...its not present in the ad in any regard.

It presents him as a man whose judegment is questionable because of what he wants to fund......which may or may not be accurate.....but there is nothing to suggest anything like "pedophile."

So from where I sit that is a false accusation.......it maybe a utterly incorrect characterzation of the bill in question and Obama's postion on it..........but NOBODY accused him of being a "pedophile."

Pretty sure that the Obama people has distorted McCain postion on some things as well.

To be honest i just copied and pasted most of that for no other reason then to watch an arguement and get entertained. I don't care about Obama really, or McCain.

Palin made reference to "gods plan" but she is not on TV shouting about the great day when there will be no more Israel on the map or the "United States is no more."

Maybe not about those countries, but what about others? Yes, im aware she has said nothing about other countries, but i believe it is a real possibility.

yes, she isn't as extreme as amejenajad(i can't spell his name either.) But being less extreme then the president of Iran doesn't make her a good choice for V.P.

Of course, for all i know she may revolutionize america or the world so, maybe im just being paranoid.

2) Yes, Islamic nutjobs are worse than Palin... ok... but we're not discussing electing them, so she's getting more press.

My point basically.

[TSDguy]

The bill

[Jason Rees]

Thanks for posting that, TSD. If that is indeed the bill, I think they could have done a better job being more specific about what they considered 'age appropriate.' Looks like it died on the floor.

[Jason Rees]

Palin defended a previous statement in which she reportedly characterized the war in Iraq as a "task from God."

Gibson quoted her as saying: "Our national leaders are sending U.S. soldiers on a task that is from God."

But Palin said she was referencing a famous quote by Abraham Lincoln.

"I would never presume to know God's will or to speak God's words. But what Abraham Lincoln had said, and that's a repeat in my comments, was let us not pray that God is on our side in a war or any other time, but let us pray that we are on God's side."

Further clarification.

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/Vote2008 ... cAAABvnDcG

[IJ]

"Ian, please clarify. What are you looking for here?"

A claim was made "people" support changing decisions they dislike and sticking with ones they don't--I wondered WHICH people.

"She didn't say God supports the Iraq war. Egads, Ian, I supplied the direct quote. Look again. As for the pipelines, who cares? Pipeline = oil = better fuel costs = right on the money."

Well, my crazy opinion is that God hasn't spoken on the Iraq war or the pipeline.

-----

"Our national leaders are sending them out on a task that is from God," she said. "That's what we have to make sure that we're praying for, that there is a plan and that plan is God's plan." A video of the speech was posted at the Wasilla Assembly of God's Web site before finding its way on to other sites on the Internet.

-----

THAT disturbs me. EVERY candidate has to gush over their faith to have any chance, so most of the comments mean nothing to me. But this stuff goes beyond what I find acceptable in a person making decisions for me.

[JimHawkins]

IMO many of the thing that pass now would not have passed then. The thought process and trust in the government was at an all time high at that time. Totally different values were the norm.

Yes, values were different, but trust in government was at an all-time high because the government officials couldn't be vetted like they can in the information age. You could hide just about anything in those days, and in politics, ignorance is bliss (for the candidate).

ridiculous..

The times were different.. Folks trusted the government not because there was no internet, but because attitudes, people, those in office and their conduct was different, not to mention the effect of post war America had on all levels of a highly prosperous and righteous society..

One could NOT hide flip flops and deny statements or actions more easily then.. See, folks actually read newspapers and paid way more attention back then.

Moreover IMO the trust was generally better placed at that time with some candidates who actually cared about more than power, prestige and future earnings potential..

VPs and top level cabinet members didn't generally look you in face regularly telling obvious and bold face lies of convenience like these scumbags do today. Presidents didn't comment off camera--that it would be easier if they ran a dictatorship and laugh like a moron--change indeed--the morons are running the show now.

[Bill Glasheen]

amejenajad(i can't spell his name either.)

This would be President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. Not a bad name to remember.

Here's another one.



Russian President Dmitry Medvedev

- Bill

[TSDguy]

Wow, this op-ed piece from the NYTimes says almost exactly what I've been rambling about in this thread. Kinda freaky.

el linko

[cxt]

Jim

"But this one might take first place for weaving it into the culture so competley"

I suggest that you read more of the writings of the people that lived in the various "Peoples/Workers Paradise's"
You know people with real problems and serious issues under the lash of an actual totalitarian goverment.

Or you could look at the "Peoples Paradise" of North Korea--where people are dying in the streets of starvation while Dear Leader pratles on about how lucky they all are to be living there.........

But of course your deeply worried about "commecials"......yes that certainly is a serious problem all right ........I was worried about getting my job done so I could get paid and buy some food...that is until I realized that a "commercial" for Crest toothpaste was my real problem.

And "sorry" but that was your "strawman" I quoted you directly and in context....any fallcious statements or hyperbole was put there by you.

[Jason Rees]

ridiculous..

The times were different.. Folks trusted the government not because there was no internet, but because attitudes, people, those in office and their conduct was different, not to mention the effect of post war America had on all levels of a highly prosperous and righteous society..

One could NOT hide flip flops and deny statements or actions more easily then.. See, folks actually read newspapers and paid way more attention back then.

Moreover IMO the trust was generally better placed at that time with some candidates who actually cared about more than power, prestige and future earnings potential..

VPs and top level cabinet members didn't generally look you in face regularly telling obvious and bold face lies of convenience like these scumbags do today. Presidents didn't comment off camera--that it would be easier if they ran a dictatorship and laugh like a moron--change indeed--the morons are running the show now.

You're white-washing history, Jim. There was no 'golden age' of perfect, civilized, honest-to-a-fault society where the mob had brains. Never happened. Technology has caught up with the liars. It didn't spawn them.

[JimHawkins]

You're white-washing history, Jim. There was no 'golden age' of perfect, civilized, honest-to-a-fault society where the mob had brains. Never happened. Technology has caught up with the liars. It didn't spawn them.

Straw man bs..

Perfect no.. Better yes.. More honest yes..

No one needed technology to catch a lie that was made in public then or now... This is simple stuff..