A lot of people just do not understand or believe that it could happen here. It really could, and that is why we must be on our guard and really parse the words of our would-be leaders. It matters.
Then why do you focus so intently on misspoken statements? You're not interested at all in parsing the meaning behind any words. You'll deny this, but it's a fact. How many links have you posted just to try to connect Obama to Islam? As though it even mattered if he were a muslim, or hindu, or atheist, or budist. America is, thankfully, a secularist government. The only reason a leader's religion matters is because most Americans are such fools that they won't elect someone who doesn't profess to be a christian.
Eventually, too many misspoken statements create a patern. Even climatologists understand you do not ignore patterns. If five men are under the same pressure, yet only one is caused to "misspeak" due to the pressure, it must be interpreted as to it's meaning. Every time a human being speaks words, they are communicating something, but not always what they intended. This is where we get the phrase "Freudian slip".
Regarding the ties to Islam, I consider Islam a GREATER threat to the world today than Nazism was in the mid 1930's. That might seem odd, but you are looking at Nazism through the lens of history. I am seeing it how the world saw it at that time. There was far less of a case you could build against that belief system then then there is that you can build against Islam today.
Don't believe it? Just read the Quran and then read Mein Kampf and tell me which is most inflammatory and dangerous. The more one reads, the more obvious this is.
Anyone even REMOTELY tied to Islam should never pass the first screening to be in the running for president of the US.
You want an education. Well, you get from it what you put into it. Read the Bible and read the Koran. Take notes. Let me know what you find.
"My wife caught one headline tonight that caused both of us to laugh though. It said Palin's first year as mayor was "turbulent". I mean, any newly elected executive who bucks the insider "status quo" is gonna have a "turbulent" first year. In fact, if they are not strong, they will not survive."
Um, it was turbulent because she 1) fired the chief of police for not supporting her politically. She put this in writing.
then 2) she was almost recalled because she tried to fire the head of the library. The reason she tried to fire the head of the library is because she wanted to BAN BOOKS. The librarian said, "HELL NO!!" and she got fired. It was the people of the city who got pissed about that and which is why she had trouble as mayor.
She was mayor long before any of her "fighting corruption" stuff happened. She was too busy burning books to fight corruption.
My point was that turbulence can follow a reformer. But you are correct that this is not the case here.
Looks like she learned some good lessons that first year!
[
All sarcasm aside, there really are times when Nuance is not acceptable. I will not mention names but there was at least one politician shortly before the middle of the last century who was very popular even among many Americans (Lindbergh comes to mind) as a true reformer before his true colors came to expose him for the almost unthinkable evil he represented.
A lot of people just do not understand or believe that it could happen here. It really could, and that is why we must be on our guard and really parse the words of our would-be leaders. It matters.
Again with the Hitler references. If you remember, the Bush family made alot of money from the Nazis. The Nazis also pre-emptively invaded soveriegn countries. They also took away civil liberties and put people in jail with out actually charging them with crimes and not allowing them to have fair trials. If you want to go down this road we can.
You make my case.
As I said before, we see Hitler through the lens of history, after his evil was fully vetted. Those before the war did not have the same luxury. Lindbergh was a huge supporter of Hitler because he liked his use of discipline, his cool airplanes, and his apparent turning around of Germany. A lot of people did.
A LOT of those in the US alive today had parents or grandparents doing business with Germany before the war. They were a trading partner and a "developing nation". Sound familiar.
Regarding the comment about Palin wanting to "burn" books, I believe the word is"ban". And it is something most Americans would "like" to do with a few books (of their own personal choice), especially when trying to "help" a small community. In her case, she certainly had support for such a move. In the end though, no books were banned. There was no courtroom decision, not book fires. She just got "educated" and let it drop. And that's ok.
BTW, one CAN ban books in public schools because they are a source of information for "minors", and all that that legally implies under the constitution. It is why they don't have Playboy there.
Regarding the ties to Islam, I consider Islam a GREATER threat to the world today than Nazism was in the mid 1930's. That might seem odd, but you are looking at Nazism through the lens of history. I am seeing it how the world saw it at that time. There was far less of a case you could build against that belief system then then there is that you can build against Islam today.
Don't believe it? Just read the Quran and then read Mein Kampf and tell me which is most inflammatory and dangerous. The more one reads, the more obvious this is.
Anyone even REMOTELY tied to Islam should never pass the first screening to be in the running for president of the US.
Apparently, every major religious text extols more violence than the followers of its tenants will admit. It's very easy to do, you read your holy book and just skim over or ignore the parts that society has taught you are actually wrong.
You're right that it is true of the Koran, but it is also true of the Bible. Even the eastern religions we often think of as peaceful have somehow resulted in ethnic cleansing between say Buddhists and Hindus.
Back to the original question, is it dangerous if we had a political leader who didn't pass the "christian" test? I come back to the fact that america has a secular government. Any leader who is able to perform sufficient cognitive dissonance between their religious beliefs and how they run the nation will do fine. George W. seems incapable of this, which is one of the reasons he's turned out to be such a poor commander in chief.
So, what about this election. You mentioned Freudian slips, and I actually think you're right. Obama does seem to have some problems with his religious story. So does McCain by the way.
My gut tells me they are both much closer to agnostics than anything else, but I'm quite fine with that. Biden, I would guess, is a sincere Catholic, but then many of the Catholics I know are not especially religious but rather it's just a part of their lifestyle. Palin is the only one I'm convinced is extremely religious.
Regarding the NAFTA memo thing, I just came across an article in the latest issue of https://www.technologyreview.com/Infotech/21220/ where they interview Austan Goolsbee, Obama's economics advisor. They mention his discussion with the Canadian officials telling them not to pay attention to what Obama was saying in the campaign trail. They mention how he had to assume a less visible role in Obama's campaign until Hillary left the race.
Read that, and unfortunately it's starting to sound very much like a "he said/she said" kind of story. Which is what I expected, but it also makes it unlikely we'll get proper revelations prior to the election.
Palin does seem to have a history of abuse of power however. I am starting to feel that she is the most frightening candidate in this particular horse race by several body lengths. (Hehehe just to counter Robroy's irrational fear of Obama).
Irrational? Nope. As a student of history, my fear would only be if he get's elected. I don't expect that to happen short of a Reichstag fire type of event.
As a Christian I consider fear to be the absence of faith and faith to be the absence of fear.
My wife caught one headline tonight that caused both of us to laugh though. It said Palin's first year as mayor was "turbulent". I mean, any newly elected executive who bucks the insider "status quo" is gonna have a "turbulent" first year. In fact, if they are not strong, they will not survive.
Just sayin'.
Trooper gate....The Trooper has 12 other violations on his record...he has admitted tasing the child....I ask do any of you Obama people condone that????????????
If I was a voter interested in deciding which of two candidates was more likely to produce change, I would look for evidence of disgruntled dirty cops, a handful of angry employees with exaggerated claims, and angry Senate leaders. If one campaign didn't have some broken egg shells laying about, I would doubt they really knew how to make an omelet regardless of how flowery a speech they gave.
Apparently, every major religious text extols more violence than the followers of its tenants will admit. It's very easy to do, you read your holy book and just skim over or ignore the parts that society has taught you are actually wrong.
Nope. I've been successfully been arguing against that position for years. All one need do is read both the Bible and the Koran and you will see what I mean.
Yes, the Bible has violence in it but NOWHERE does it tell me to commit violence against non-believers. Nowhere. The Koran (and the BOM for that matter) is a man-made book and the more you read it, the more obvious it becomes. The two are not in the same league.,
[quopte]
Back to the original question, is it dangerous if we had a political leader who didn't pass the "christian" test? I come back to the fact that america has a secular government. Any leader who is able to perform sufficient cognitive dissonance between their religious beliefs and how they run the nation will do fine. George W. seems incapable of this, which is one of the reasons he's turned out to be such a poor commander in chief.
[/quote]
W did not pass a "Christian" test with me. He did, however, pass a "similar values" test. Jimmy Carter was/is apparently a strong Christian. That did not make him a good president. Nor would my Christianity make me a good brain surgeon.
So, what about this election. You mentioned Freudian slips, and I actually think you're right. Obama does seem to have some problems with his religious story. So does McCain by the way.
My gut tells me they are both much closer to agnostics than anything else, but I'm quite fine with that. Biden, I would guess, is a sincere Catholic, but then many of the Catholics I know are not especially religious but rather it's just a part of their lifestyle. Palin is the only one I'm convinced is extremely religious.
If Palin had not been included on the ticket, I would not have voted. I made this VERY clear to many of my friends. I am one of those who was seriously energized by the Palin choice, partly because of what she has done and what it suggests about her values, and partly because McCain actually made a decision with which I strongly agree. IOW, she's good and he proved, by choosing her, that he was better than I thought he was.
Regarding the ties to Islam, I consider Islam a GREATER threat to the world today than Nazism was in the mid 1930's. That might seem odd, but you are looking at Nazism through the lens of history. I am seeing it how the world saw it at that time. There was far less of a case you could build against that belief system then then there is that you can build against Islam today.
Don't believe it? Just read the Quran and then read Mein Kampf and tell me which is most inflammatory and dangerous. The more one reads, the more obvious this is.
Anyone even REMOTELY tied to Islam should never pass the first screening to be in the running for president of the US.
Apparently, every major religious text extols more violence than the followers of its tenants will admit. It's very easy to do, you read your holy book and just skim over or ignore the parts that society has taught you are actually wrong.
You're right that it is true of the Koran, but it is also true of the Bible. Even the eastern religions we often think of as peaceful have somehow resulted in ethnic cleansing between say Buddhists and Hindus.
Back to the original question, is it dangerous if we had a political leader who didn't pass the "christian" test? I come back to the fact that america has a secular government. Any leader who is able to perform sufficient cognitive dissonance between their religious beliefs and how they run the nation will do fine. George W. seems incapable of this, which is one of the reasons he's turned out to be such a poor commander in chief.
So, what about this election. You mentioned Freudian slips, and I actually think you're right. Obama does seem to have some problems with his religious story. So does McCain by the way.
My gut tells me they are both much closer to agnostics than anything else, but I'm quite fine with that. Biden, I would guess, is a sincere Catholic, but then many of the Catholics I know are not especially religious but rather it's just a part of their lifestyle. Palin is the only one I'm convinced is extremely religious.
I believe Biden is Pro-Abortion...You can't really be Catholic and be Pro-Abortion....
You are right however that many people who Call themselves Catholic ...are not religious and not really Catholics they just call themselves Catholic.
This has been a fascinating thread to follow...and I'm not even a "political" person.
However...If RCC was on the ticket...I'd vote for him/her.
You state that you are young RCC...I guess it shows that age is not a prerequisite for wisdom.
The only thing that frightens me are people such as Robroy that speak in such "absolute" terms...be they "left" or "right".
To paraphrase a quote my father told me...
"The most dangerous man in the world is the man who is absolutely sure
that he is right."
That is a valid point. I actually have two responses.
1. There really IS such a thing as absolute truth.
2. I am absolutely sure about very few things. I am absolutely sure who my children are. I am absolutely sure who my wife is. I am absolutely sure who my God is. Beyond that, everything is up for discussion. I am very confident about some of my opinions, somewhat confident about others, and have merely chosen a position (until further evidence presents itself) on others. However, the more I know about a thing, the more "sure" I am. The "men are different than women" thing would be a good example.
Maybe I am more sure about more things becuase I have spent four decades studying and observing them, while others are relatively new to me.
Two more things to think about:
1. your father's quote is the flip side of another axiom: "The most successful man in the world is the man who is absolutely confident in his beliefs and applies them to his life."
2. Many of my opinions in some areas may not be as strong as you think they are. Maybe, just maybe, I am challenging different opinions becuase they are presented with no foundation, or with seriously flawed foundations. Remember, it is difficult to get the full meaning of what someone is trying to communicate, or who the person is, with mere printed words.
This has been a fascinating thread to follow...and I'm not even a "political" person.
However...If RCC was on the ticket...I'd vote for him/her.
Wow! Thanks! I really mean it. Fortunately, I am on a ticket...this year and every year.
Just kidding (about being Larouche, not about appreciating the compliment).
Whenever I see the Larouche kids on the corner downtown I think of what I actually said to one of them once: "I like you. You remind me of myself when I was young and stupid".
There is a reason it is mostly kids.
And when you DO see an older person working the table it is only proving another favorite quote of mine: "With age comes wisdom. But sometimes age comes alone".
Whenever I see the Larouche kids on the corner downtown I think of what I actually said to one of them once: "I like you. You remind me of myself when I was young and stupid".
There is a reason it is mostly kids.
And when you DO see an older person working the table it is only proving another favorite quote of mine: "With age comes wisdom. But sometimes age comes alone".
I looked into the Larouche thing a LONG time ago.
"children, what have i told you before? there's a time and a place for everything and its called college" -- chef
palin is apparently a good choice for mccain, at least in the short term.
Not saying this isn't a "Palin bump", but considering she arrived at the same time as the convention, how do we separate the two effects? Perhaps the republicans had a pathetic convention and Palin is the source of the entire bump. Or perhaps she had a negative effect and the republicans ran a phenomenal convention to make up for it.
I mean, Obama had a pretty good convention bump as well despite the fact that he doesn't have Palin running on his ticket.
People are reading polls as though they are some sort of concrete truth. As long as they are within or near the margin of error, they are as effective as so many charts and graphs used to pick stocks.
As candidates get vetted (and it is finally happening to Obama as well), people will be able to make more informed choices. What matters in this game is the score at the end, but the game already turned decisively last week. It was turning before that, just not quite as quickly.
Speaking of vetting, this from the UK is interesting:
Billing the taxpayers for sleeping in her own bed and eating in her own dining room... sounds a bit like pork, or maybe even fraud. Also sounds a lot like "same politics, different name."
Good review of the bridge to nowhere. Not sure what to really make of this. It was clearly a pork barrel project that Palin supported, campaigned in favor of, but eventually axed. The state did use the money for other transportation needs, eventually.
A rather scathing review of Palin's executive skills in Wasilla. Written by an individual, so credibility may be lacking.
Whatever you think of polls, McCain got some good news after the convention - bumps that put him in a 2sigma lead in Ohio, and stastical ties in FL and CO.
Remember, the national polls mean absolutely nothing. We do not have a national election for president.
Whatever you think of polls, McCain got some good news after the convention - bumps that put him in a 2sigma lead in Ohio, and stastical ties in FL and CO.
Remember, the national polls mean absolutely nothing. We do not have a national election for president.
I've always felt like the polls finally become valuable a couple weeks after both conventions are held. I would think if either candidate has a lead outside the margin of error after September 21st, it is significant.
In the meantime, I've noticed a significant fall-off in the 24x7-Palin-news cycle. She was overexposed last week, but I think we'll see a more even number of news cycles on each candidate from here on out. I have a hypothesis what that means for the election, but why share speculation?
Billing the taxpayers for sleeping in her own bed and eating in her own dining room... sounds a bit like pork, or maybe even fraud. Also sounds a lot like "same politics, different name."
I don't know what the compensation for package for Governors usually includes, but in Alaska it appears the norm is for free housing and a chef, and apparently expenses are covered when she is away from her temporary home in the Governer's mansion.
This article http://volokh.com/archives/archive_2008 ... 1220936107 does the math, and it appears to work out to $54.33 per day when she visited her home. Her home is close to Anchorage, which is where 40% of the population of Alaska lives, so it is reasonable to assume she spent a considerable amount of time on state business there. That amount would pretty much cover food not much else, since Alaska has a pretty high cost of living. She appears to have not charged the state for her use of her house, even though she would have had to stay in hotel if she did not have that house. Considering that she is allowed to charge for her children as well when she is traveling on business, it seems to be she could have charged the state quite a bit more and still stayed within the law.
palin is apparently a good choice for mccain, at least in the short term.
Not saying this isn't a "Palin bump", but considering she arrived at the same time as the convention, how do we separate the two effects? Perhaps the republicans had a pathetic convention and Palin is the source of the entire bump. Or perhaps she had a negative effect and the republicans ran a phenomenal convention to make up for it.
I mean, Obama had a pretty good convention bump as well despite the fact that he doesn't have Palin running on his ticket.
The convention would have been totally dead without SARAH....
I like many Conservatives was going to sit out the Presidentual race ..I will now vote for Palin....I still don't like McCain even though he is Light years better then OBAMA.
I've always felt like the polls finally become valuable a couple weeks after both conventions are held. I would think if either candidate has a lead outside the margin of error after September 21st, it is significant.
In the meantime, I've noticed a significant fall-off in the 24x7-Palin-news cycle. She was overexposed last week, but I think we'll see a more even number of news cycles on each candidate from here on out. I have a hypothesis what that means for the election, but why share speculation?
Yep, I'm posting just to say I absolutely agree with this, with the exception of that last sentence. I'm happy to share my speculation, but as when I DO pick stocks, it is based on observation and analysys through knowledge and experience. It isn't a crap shoot.
I don't do it for money so I do it as a form of commitment of my reputation, and let the chips fall where they may after I pull the trigger.
palin is apparently a good choice for mccain, at least in the short term.
Not saying this isn't a "Palin bump", but considering she arrived at the same time as the convention, how do we separate the two effects? Perhaps the republicans had a pathetic convention and Palin is the source of the entire bump. Or perhaps she had a negative effect and the republicans ran a phenomenal convention to make up for it.
I mean, Obama had a pretty good convention bump as well despite the fact that he doesn't have Palin running on his ticket.
I'm going to bet that this is due to Palin. McCain hadn't been running a very good campaign up until now, and Palin completely energized the Republican base (as we can see in this thread).
Obama also didn't get a measurable bump in the intrade numbers. They don't seem to be as swayed by simple media attention the way that polling tends to be.
Still another 2 months to go, however, and the VP debate is going to be interesting...
I like many Conservatives was going to sit out the Presidentual race ..I will now vote for Palin....I still don't like McCain even though he is Light years better then OBAMA.
You do realize that the president, the guy you dislike, is the only one with any real power right? I find it a little...disappointing how many people have convinced themselves that this is a fundamentally different ticket just because Palin is on the second slot.
Also, unlike Bush/Cheney I don't see Palin exerting any real influence over McCain. If you can say one thing about him, it's that he does appear to be fiercely independent.
You do realize that the president, the guy you dislike, is the only one with any real power right? I find it a little...disappointing how many people have convinced themselves that this is a fundamentally different ticket just because Palin is on the second slot.
they could be placing a bet on mccain biting it.
Also, unlike Bush/Cheney I don't see Palin exerting any real influence over McCain. If you can say one thing about him, it's that he does appear to be fiercely independent.
i don't know about that. he's basically sold his soul to the karl rove faction of the republican party.
the democrats would do well to run ads designed to make the far-right afraid they're going to elect the 2000 john mccain, and make the middle ground afraid that they're going to elect george bush again (they seem to only be focusing on the latter, but they'd do well to also address the former).
I like many Conservatives was going to sit out the Presidentual race ..I will now vote for Palin....I still don't like McCain even though he is Light years better then OBAMA.
You do realize that the president, the guy you dislike, is the only one with any real power right? I find it a little...disappointing how many people have convinced themselves that this is a fundamentally different ticket just because Palin is on the second slot.
Also, unlike Bush/Cheney I don't see Palin exerting any real influence over McCain. If you can say one thing about him, it's that he does appear to be fiercely independent.
You do realize that the president, the guy you dislike, is the only one with any real power right? I find it a little...disappointing how many people have convinced themselves that this is a fundamentally different ticket just because Palin is on the second slot.
they could be placing a bet on mccain biting it.
Also, unlike Bush/Cheney I don't see Palin exerting any real influence over McCain. If you can say one thing about him, it's that he does appear to be fiercely independent.
i don't know about that. he's basically sold his soul to the karl rove faction of the republican party.
the democrats would do well to run ads designed to make the far-right afraid they're going to elect the 2000 john mccain, and make the middle ground afraid that they're going to elect george bush again (they seem to only be focusing on the latter, but they'd do well to also address the former).
The far right (that would be me) has nowhere else to turn. My attitude, before Palin, was to basically keep my powder dry for the coming revolution. It is still part of my plan, but for different reasons.
But the real mark in McCain's favor based on this choice is that he DID make this choice. Even though much of his motivation was to energize the conservative base, his courage to make such a bold move (coupled with who he actually chose) caused me to re-examine the things he did in his career from a "what would I do in his position" frame of mind. I actually ended up liking him more. He is not the same man he was ten 20, or 40 years ago. He is the culmination of experience and the mental processing those experiences caused. Successful people are willing to sincerely change their position, as I believe he has on drilling in ANWAR for example.
Comments
Then why do you focus so intently on misspoken statements? You're not interested at all in parsing the meaning behind any words. You'll deny this, but it's a fact. How many links have you posted just to try to connect Obama to Islam? As though it even mattered if he were a muslim, or hindu, or atheist, or budist. America is, thankfully, a secularist government. The only reason a leader's religion matters is because most Americans are such fools that they won't elect someone who doesn't profess to be a christian.
Eventually, too many misspoken statements create a patern. Even climatologists understand you do not ignore patterns. If five men are under the same pressure, yet only one is caused to "misspeak" due to the pressure, it must be interpreted as to it's meaning. Every time a human being speaks words, they are communicating something, but not always what they intended. This is where we get the phrase "Freudian slip".
Regarding the ties to Islam, I consider Islam a GREATER threat to the world today than Nazism was in the mid 1930's. That might seem odd, but you are looking at Nazism through the lens of history. I am seeing it how the world saw it at that time. There was far less of a case you could build against that belief system then then there is that you can build against Islam today.
Don't believe it? Just read the Quran and then read Mein Kampf and tell me which is most inflammatory and dangerous. The more one reads, the more obvious this is.
Anyone even REMOTELY tied to Islam should never pass the first screening to be in the running for president of the US.
You want an education. Well, you get from it what you put into it. Read the Bible and read the Koran. Take notes. Let me know what you find.
It turned me around.
By the way, Truth IS absolute.
Looks like she learned some good lessons that first year!
As I said before, we see Hitler through the lens of history, after his evil was fully vetted. Those before the war did not have the same luxury. Lindbergh was a huge supporter of Hitler because he liked his use of discipline, his cool airplanes, and his apparent turning around of Germany. A lot of people did.
A LOT of those in the US alive today had parents or grandparents doing business with Germany before the war. They were a trading partner and a "developing nation". Sound familiar.
Regarding the comment about Palin wanting to "burn" books, I believe the word is"ban". And it is something most Americans would "like" to do with a few books (of their own personal choice), especially when trying to "help" a small community. In her case, she certainly had support for such a move. In the end though, no books were banned. There was no courtroom decision, not book fires. She just got "educated" and let it drop. And that's ok.
BTW, one CAN ban books in public schools because they are a source of information for "minors", and all that that legally implies under the constitution. It is why they don't have Playboy there.
Apparently, every major religious text extols more violence than the followers of its tenants will admit. It's very easy to do, you read your holy book and just skim over or ignore the parts that society has taught you are actually wrong.
You're right that it is true of the Koran, but it is also true of the Bible. Even the eastern religions we often think of as peaceful have somehow resulted in ethnic cleansing between say Buddhists and Hindus.
Back to the original question, is it dangerous if we had a political leader who didn't pass the "christian" test? I come back to the fact that america has a secular government. Any leader who is able to perform sufficient cognitive dissonance between their religious beliefs and how they run the nation will do fine. George W. seems incapable of this, which is one of the reasons he's turned out to be such a poor commander in chief.
So, what about this election. You mentioned Freudian slips, and I actually think you're right. Obama does seem to have some problems with his religious story. So does McCain by the way.
My gut tells me they are both much closer to agnostics than anything else, but I'm quite fine with that. Biden, I would guess, is a sincere Catholic, but then many of the Catholics I know are not especially religious but rather it's just a part of their lifestyle. Palin is the only one I'm convinced is extremely religious.
Trooper gate....The Trooper has 12 other violations on his record...he has admitted tasing the child....I ask do any of you Obama people condone that????????????
Yes, the Bible has violence in it but NOWHERE does it tell me to commit violence against non-believers. Nowhere. The Koran (and the BOM for that matter) is a man-made book and the more you read it, the more obvious it becomes. The two are not in the same league.,
[quopte]
Back to the original question, is it dangerous if we had a political leader who didn't pass the "christian" test? I come back to the fact that america has a secular government. Any leader who is able to perform sufficient cognitive dissonance between their religious beliefs and how they run the nation will do fine. George W. seems incapable of this, which is one of the reasons he's turned out to be such a poor commander in chief.
[/quote]
W did not pass a "Christian" test with me. He did, however, pass a "similar values" test. Jimmy Carter was/is apparently a strong Christian. That did not make him a good president. Nor would my Christianity make me a good brain surgeon. If Palin had not been included on the ticket, I would not have voted. I made this VERY clear to many of my friends. I am one of those who was seriously energized by the Palin choice, partly because of what she has done and what it suggests about her values, and partly because McCain actually made a decision with which I strongly agree. IOW, she's good and he proved, by choosing her, that he was better than I thought he was.
I believe Biden is Pro-Abortion...You can't really be Catholic and be Pro-Abortion....
You are right however that many people who Call themselves Catholic ...are not religious and not really Catholics they just call themselves Catholic.
However...If RCC was on the ticket...I'd vote for him/her.
You state that you are young RCC...I guess it shows that age is not a prerequisite for wisdom.
The only thing that frightens me are people such as Robroy that speak in such "absolute" terms...be they "left" or "right".
To paraphrase a quote my father told me...
"The most dangerous man in the world is the man who is absolutely sure
that he is right."
Wow! Thanks! I really mean it. Fortunately, I am on a ticket...this year and every year.
Just kidding (about being Larouche, not about appreciating the compliment).
1. There really IS such a thing as absolute truth.
2. I am absolutely sure about very few things. I am absolutely sure who my children are. I am absolutely sure who my wife is. I am absolutely sure who my God is. Beyond that, everything is up for discussion. I am very confident about some of my opinions, somewhat confident about others, and have merely chosen a position (until further evidence presents itself) on others. However, the more I know about a thing, the more "sure" I am. The "men are different than women" thing would be a good example.
Maybe I am more sure about more things becuase I have spent four decades studying and observing them, while others are relatively new to me.
Two more things to think about:
1. your father's quote is the flip side of another axiom: "The most successful man in the world is the man who is absolutely confident in his beliefs and applies them to his life."
2. Many of my opinions in some areas may not be as strong as you think they are. Maybe, just maybe, I am challenging different opinions becuase they are presented with no foundation, or with seriously flawed foundations. Remember, it is difficult to get the full meaning of what someone is trying to communicate, or who the person is, with mere printed words.
There is a reason it is mostly kids.
And when you DO see an older person working the table it is only proving another favorite quote of mine: "With age comes wisdom. But sometimes age comes alone".
I looked into the Larouche thing a LONG time ago.
"children, what have i told you before? there's a time and a place for everything and its called college" -- chef
palin is apparently a good choice for mccain, at least in the short term.
Not saying this isn't a "Palin bump", but considering she arrived at the same time as the convention, how do we separate the two effects? Perhaps the republicans had a pathetic convention and Palin is the source of the entire bump. Or perhaps she had a negative effect and the republicans ran a phenomenal convention to make up for it.
I mean, Obama had a pretty good convention bump as well despite the fact that he doesn't have Palin running on his ticket.
As candidates get vetted (and it is finally happening to Obama as well), people will be able to make more informed choices. What matters in this game is the score at the end, but the game already turned decisively last week. It was turning before that, just not quite as quickly.
Speaking of vetting, this from the UK is interesting:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/opinion/main ... do0904.xml
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/co ... id=topnews
Billing the taxpayers for sleeping in her own bed and eating in her own dining room... sounds a bit like pork, or maybe even fraud. Also sounds a lot like "same politics, different name."
http://www.cqpolitics.com/wmspage.cfm?d ... 24&cpage=1
Good review of the bridge to nowhere. Not sure what to really make of this. It was clearly a pork barrel project that Palin supported, campaigned in favor of, but eventually axed. The state did use the money for other transportation needs, eventually.
http://www.crosscut.com/politics-government/17341
A rather scathing review of Palin's executive skills in Wasilla. Written by an individual, so credibility may be lacking.
Whatever you think of polls, McCain got some good news after the convention - bumps that put him in a 2sigma lead in Ohio, and stastical ties in FL and CO.
Remember, the national polls mean absolutely nothing. We do not have a national election for president.
I've always felt like the polls finally become valuable a couple weeks after both conventions are held. I would think if either candidate has a lead outside the margin of error after September 21st, it is significant.
In the meantime, I've noticed a significant fall-off in the 24x7-Palin-news cycle. She was overexposed last week, but I think we'll see a more even number of news cycles on each candidate from here on out. I have a hypothesis what that means for the election, but why share speculation?
I don't know what the compensation for package for Governors usually includes, but in Alaska it appears the norm is for free housing and a chef, and apparently expenses are covered when she is away from her temporary home in the Governer's mansion.
This article http://volokh.com/archives/archive_2008 ... 1220936107 does the math, and it appears to work out to $54.33 per day when she visited her home. Her home is close to Anchorage, which is where 40% of the population of Alaska lives, so it is reasonable to assume she spent a considerable amount of time on state business there. That amount would pretty much cover food not much else, since Alaska has a pretty high cost of living. She appears to have not charged the state for her use of her house, even though she would have had to stay in hotel if she did not have that house. Considering that she is allowed to charge for her children as well when she is traveling on business, it seems to be she could have charged the state quite a bit more and still stayed within the law.
The convention would have been totally dead without SARAH....
I like many Conservatives was going to sit out the Presidentual race ..I will now vote for Palin....I still don't like McCain even though he is Light years better then OBAMA.
I don't do it for money so I do it as a form of commitment of my reputation, and let the chips fall where they may after I pull the trigger.
I'm going to bet that this is due to Palin. McCain hadn't been running a very good campaign up until now, and Palin completely energized the Republican base (as we can see in this thread).
Obama also didn't get a measurable bump in the intrade numbers. They don't seem to be as swayed by simple media attention the way that polling tends to be.
Still another 2 months to go, however, and the VP debate is going to be interesting...
You do realize that the president, the guy you dislike, is the only one with any real power right? I find it a little...disappointing how many people have convinced themselves that this is a fundamentally different ticket just because Palin is on the second slot.
Also, unlike Bush/Cheney I don't see Palin exerting any real influence over McCain. If you can say one thing about him, it's that he does appear to be fiercely independent.
No, apparently everyone thinks she looks like Tina Fey
they could be placing a bet on mccain biting it.
i don't know about that. he's basically sold his soul to the karl rove faction of the republican party.
the democrats would do well to run ads designed to make the far-right afraid they're going to elect the 2000 john mccain, and make the middle ground afraid that they're going to elect george bush again (they seem to only be focusing on the latter, but they'd do well to also address the former).
'Course, his mother is pretty old.
Just sayin'...
But the real mark in McCain's favor based on this choice is that he DID make this choice. Even though much of his motivation was to energize the conservative base, his courage to make such a bold move (coupled with who he actually chose) caused me to re-examine the things he did in his career from a "what would I do in his position" frame of mind. I actually ended up liking him more. He is not the same man he was ten 20, or 40 years ago. He is the culmination of experience and the mental processing those experiences caused. Successful people are willing to sincerely change their position, as I believe he has on drilling in ANWAR for example.